Diplomacy often requires a skillful exercise of nuance. It was especially true on Tuesday, when Israel targeted Hamas leaders in Qatar. However, we have to start with Sunday, when a US official said to me: “I know your articles have spoken of the need to pressure Hamas, Qatar, and Hamas in Qatar; stand by… I’m just saying.”
He did not elaborate, nor did he tell me to refrain from publishing his comment, but I did, fearing that the information was too sensitive to be revealed ahead of time.
Soon after the Israeli strike took place on Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel was taking “full responsibility,” helping the US administration to keep a distance from angering Qatar. US President Donald Trump has argued that Doha is playing a positive role in the efforts to resolve the hostage crisis.
It has long been noted that US military officials view Qatar as crucial because it is home to the largest US military installation in the Middle East, at Al Udeid Air Base. Trump views Qatar as a positive force due to its financial prowess and its ability to fund regional projects that could help shape Gaza’s future.
Trump warns of Hamas of heavy price, but also condemns Doha strike
White house press secretary Karoline Leavitt said after Tuesday’s Israeli military action that Trump “feels very badly about the location of this attack.” Though some analysts referred to the statement as a sign of great US displeasure with Israel, multiple officials in Washington and Jerusalem disagreed.
“The White House did a real diplomatic dance in reacting,” said one American official. He referred to how the president, in his reaction as stated by Leavitt, noted that “unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States... does not advance Israel or America’s goals,” but asserted as well, that “eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.”
Another term used by officials to describe the US president’s approach is the often-cited tactic of “good cop, bad cop.” As recently as this week, Trump warned that Hamas would pay a heavy price if it didn’t accept the US proposal for a hostage release and end the Israel-Gaza War. He has repeatedly made clear that he views his role as making peace proposals, while warning Hamas that it would “bear the wrath” of the Israeli military, in the words of one US source, if the terror group did not accept the American offers.
“We’re not happy about extending the Israeli attacks to Qatar, but if Netanyahu can show us that this action will help end the war and bring the hostages home, how could we complain?” said an American official, whose words were echoed by a second US source.
Leavitt said that “the Trump administration was notified by the United States military” about the Israeli attack. Some analysts found the wording unusual, as it would be more common to cite presidential military advisers as opposed to the army itself. But Washington and Jerusalem sources say that the phrasing was “strategically formulated,” as specifically described by an Israeli official.
“It’s well-known that Israeli-US military cooperation is very close. This military strike had been planned for some time, though tweaking took place until the final moment,” said the Israeli official. “The US military is going to be aware of it, even if it doesn’t know all the details.”
A US political source put it this way: “The president, even if aware of plans in principle, would not want to know exactly when Israel might do it. He wouldn’t even want his advisers telling him. It’s part of the ‘good cop, bad cop’ approach.
“At the very last moment, when our military establishment is in a position to be sure that it’s happening, the message is relayed to the president.”
Leavitt said that, in fact, the White House received word of the Israeli attack “just before” it happened.
Trump was said to have instructed Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to then alert Qatar, but Trump wrote on his social media platform that Witkoff’s warning to the Qataris was “unfortunately, too late to stop the attack.”
When I reviewed this information with a senior Israeli official, he commented: “This teaches you an important lesson; sometimes the diplomatic and political maneuvering, at moments like these, is almost as important as the military plans themselves.”
The writer is the op-ed editor of The Jerusalem Post.