TEHRAN- As the repercussions of Israel’s latest strike targeting Hamas leaders in Doha reverberate across the region, questions are mounting over the future of ceasefire negotiations and Qatar’s role as a trusted mediator.

The September 9 attack, which coincided with the opening of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, has cast new doubt on Washington’s credibility as a broker and underscored the vulnerability of Arab capitals hosting sensitive talks.

In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Aleef Sabbagh, a Palestinian political analyst in Quds (Jerusalem) specializing in the Zionist regime’s strategies examines Israel’s broader objectives, the complicity of the United States, the risks facing host countries, and the potential consequences for regional diplomacy at a time when Gaza remains at the epicenter of global attention.

Below is the full text of the interview:

Will Israel’s strike on targeting Hamas leaders in Doha affect mediation efforts and ceasefire negotiations in the region?

Yes, I believe the negotiations will be affected by the terrorist operation carried out by Israel and the U.S. in Doha, and they may be disrupted, even if only temporarily—possibly for days or weeks. The Qatari Prime Minister has announced the “suspension” of Qatar’s participation in mediation. The negotiations could later resume along one of two paths:

The first path is that Israel and the U.S. might try to move the negotiations to Cairo in order to tell Qatar that it cannot influence what America and Israel want. However, I believe Egypt and Hamas will not allow this at present.

The second, and better, path could emerge as a result of the U.S. and Israel’s terrorist operation against the Palestinian negotiating delegation in a capital of an Arab country that considers itself an ally of America—particularly a Persian Gulf state—which has provided significant services to Israel over decades.

In this path, the U.S. would be removed from the role of mediator and sponsor, and the United Nations would become the official sponsor, managing negotiations between Israel and Hamas through a special envoy of the Secretary-General.

This requires an international decision, but above all, it requires a Palestinian and Arab demand agreed upon by a majority of countries in the UN General Assembly or the Security Council. The question remains: do Arab states dare to take this initiative, or do they fear America’s anger?

Do you see this strike as a shift in Israel’s strategy toward Hamas and the resistance?

Israel has not changed its strategy toward Hamas and will not change it. The core Israeli strategy is not aimed at any particular organization but at the Palestinian people as a whole. Israel uses all military, political, economic means, and the “American stick” to erase Palestinian identity, the Palestinian entity, and either displace or annihilate the Palestinian people. Netanyahu and his government colleagues do not hesitate to use the word “extermination”—one of the most frequently used terms in Hebrew—to signify the “absolute victory” that Netanyahu has set as the goal of this genocidal war.

What has been the reaction of the international community, especially Arab countries and the United States, to this attack?

The U.S. tried to disassociate itself from this terrorist operation, but the facts emerged, and Trump failed to conceal them.

He even admitted to some involvement when he said: “I was involved in the operation; the planes were in the air, and I informed the leadership in Qatar,” but subsequent facts confirmed that this was false.

Netanyahu also failed to absolve Trump, as did White House officials. U.S. credibility as a mediator—which was already weak—has now completely evaporated. America no longer has a place in mediation and must be recognized as a partner in the aggression against the Palestinian people.

As for Europe, aside from condemnation and denunciation, it will not act more Arab or more Palestinian than the Arabs and Palestinians themselves.

Europe awaits practical Arab action, not just words. However, I do not rule out that the U.S. might allow the Palestinian delegation to participate in UN General Assembly meetings in New York in exchange for continuing to act as the official sponsor of negotiations at the request of the Ramallah Authority.

What are the risks and lessons learned from carrying out such operations in host countries?

Host countries(countries where negotiations or diplomatic delegations are held or based), Arab and Islamic, must understand that Israel does not respect the sovereignty of any state as long as the U.S. gives it the green light—which it always does.

Even if such approval is not public, Israel could carry out similar terrorist operations in any Arab or Islamic capital through its proxies and agents, of which there are many.

How might this attack impact Qatar’s role and status as a regional political player?

Qatar’s role as a regional and international mediator will be affected, especially since Qatar has served as a mediator in many deals that advanced the U.S. strategy in the Middle East.

Qatar has been trying to enhance its role as a regional and international mediator. At the U.S.’s request, it mediated between Israel and Hamas, gathering Hamas leadership in Doha. The meeting, originally scheduled at a hotel, was moved to a private villa—which was then bombed—also at U.S. request.

Hamas leadership may now seek to relocate to Turkey instead of Qatar, as they do not feel safe, which would certainly not be in Qatar’s favor.

Do you think this strike will encourage regional unity or increase divisions and tensions?

I do not want to provide analysis or make predictions based on what “should be,” so I will say this: this operation should have served as a crossroads for Arab countries, particularly the Persian Gulf states, prompting them to take practical measures to safeguard their security and sovereignty.

However, in reality, these countries and their regimes are closely tied to the U.S. economically, militarily, and therefore politically. Israel knows this well. The U.S. does not see these regimes as allies, partners, or friends, but rather as “submissive” to American will. Accordingly, Israel treats these regimes and their rulers with contempt, showing no respect for their sovereignty or their leaders.

The latest evidence is Netanyahu’s statement that he will pursue Hamas leaders wherever they are, without regard for state sovereignty; Tom Barrack’s remark to Lebanese officials that Israel does not recognize Sykes-Picot borders and intends to reach anywhere regardless of borders or sovereignty; and Dani Danon, Israel’s UN ambassador, said on September 10th: “I communicate with many Arab leaders who issued high-profile statements against Israel for attacking Hamas in Doha, but in informal meetings, they tell us ‘all respect,’ because they hate Hamas.”

This statement is not new; many Israeli leaders have said similar things in the past and present, and no Arab leader has ever denied it.

This situation encourages Israel to carry out more terrorist acts like the bombing in Doha and reinforces Israeli contempt for Arab rulers. Therefore, I do not see the Arabs taking any practical action against Israel and the U.S., except for verbal positions, and at most, turning to the UN General Assembly.

What role are international institutions expected to play in responding to this operation?

The international arena is the most important today, especially with the annual UN General Assembly meeting approaching. Here, Arabs can mobilize international public opinion in their favor and take measures that could pressure America and Israel.

But this requires courage from Persian Gulf rulers in particular, as they are the most affected by Israeli terrorism and are now facing real threats they never expected to be realistic in the past.