In a dramatic escalation that has sent shockwaves through the Middle East, Israeli fighter jets launched ballistic missiles from the Red Sea targeting Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, on September 9, 2025. The attack, which killed six people in the Qatari capital, was not only a significant military maneuver but also a diplomatic earthquake, disrupting months of Qatar-mediated ceasefire diplomacy in the nearly two-year-long Israel-Hamas war. According to reporting from the Associated Press, the strike was designed to bypass regional air defenses and avoid entering any Middle Eastern nation’s airspace, a feat that has left military analysts and regional governments alike scrambling to understand its implications.
The timing of the strike was particularly sensitive. Hamas leaders had gathered in Doha to consider a proposal aimed at halting the grinding conflict in Gaza, a war that has already devastated the enclave and inflamed tensions across the region. Instead, the sudden attack upended these negotiations, reigniting anger and raising fears that other countries could become targets in the future. As reported by the Associated Press, about a week after the missile launch, Israel began a ground offensive targeting Gaza City, further intensifying the conflict and regional anxieties.
What made this strike so remarkable—and so alarming to military planners—was the method Israel used. According to a U.S. defense official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, Israeli fighter jets launched approximately ten ballistic missiles from over the Red Sea, with about ten planes participating in the mission. This “over the horizon” attack allowed Israel to strike from outside Qatar’s airspace, avoiding the airspace of surrounding Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. The political calculus here was clear: by not violating Saudi sovereignty, Israel kept alive its hopes of eventually normalizing relations with the kingdom, even as it pursued its military objectives elsewhere.
But the technical prowess of the strike was equally significant. Ballistic missiles, such as those reportedly used in the attack, fly up into the upper atmosphere—or even into space—before descending at multiple times the speed of sound. This flight profile makes them extremely difficult to intercept with conventional air defense systems. As Sidharth Kaushal, a missile expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London, told the Associated Press, “We’re probably talking about a few minutes from fire to impact, so not long at all. Even if (Patriot batteries) did pick it up, interception would have been dumb luck at that point.”
Qatar, for its part, had invested billions in U.S.-made air defense systems, including the widely deployed Patriot missile batteries. However, as the Associated Press and other outlets have noted, these systems are not designed to intercept missiles at the extreme altitudes and speeds involved in an attack like this. While Qatar had ordered a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system during a visit by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in May, it’s unclear whether that system was operational at the time of the strike. The inability of these costly defenses to stop the Israeli missiles has raised uncomfortable questions in Doha about the value of American arms—and could have far-reaching implications for future U.S. defense sales in the region, as noted by reporting from Haaretz.
The American military, which operates its Middle East forward headquarters out of Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, was reportedly caught off guard by the strike. The United States has said it called Qatar as soon as it learned of the Israeli attack, but officials in Doha claim the warning came only after the missiles had already struck. The Israeli military, the Qatari government, and the Pentagon have all declined to comment on the specifics of the operation, while the White House has referred questions to the Israeli government. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report on the means Israel used to attack Hamas in Qatar.
Experts have speculated about the exact type of missiles used in the strike. Jeffrey Lewis, a missile expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, suggested to the Associated Press that the missiles could be variants of Israel’s Golden Horizon or IS02 ROCKS air-launched ballistic missiles. These weapons have an estimated range of up to 2,000 kilometers (about 1,240 miles), well within the distance from the Red Sea to Doha, which is approximately 1,700 kilometers (1,055 miles). The Sparrow missile, another possible candidate, includes an option for an inert warhead, which might explain why a nearby gas station did not explode despite the force of the attack. “Even an inert warhead should hit with a lot of force—say a few hundred kilograms (pounds) of TNT,” Lewis explained.
The use of air-launched ballistic missiles is not new in global military strategy. Russia has employed similar tactics in its war on Ukraine, seeking to protect its aircraft from Ukrainian air defenses. China, too, showcased a nuclear-capable, air-launched ballistic missile during its recent Victory Day parade. For Israel, the deployment of such technology marks a significant evolution in its ability to strike distant targets while minimizing risk to its own forces and diplomatic relationships. Last June, Israel launched a 12-day war against Iran that included the use of “standoff” weapons, allowing aircraft to fire on targets from far outside a country’s airspace—another step in this emerging pattern.
The aftermath of the strike has been turbulent. In Qatar, the incident has triggered a wave of concern about the effectiveness of its American-made defenses. As Haaretz reported, “The Israeli strike on Doha has left Qatar facing the question of why it has been paying so much money for American air defense, which costs billions and failed to get the job done at the moment of truth.” This sentiment is likely to reverberate in other Gulf capitals as well, potentially complicating America’s lucrative defense relationships in the region. The breach of U.S.-supplied systems by a close American ally is, as one analyst put it, "a wake-up call for both buyers and sellers of advanced military technology."
For Israel, the strike achieved its immediate tactical goal but at a cost. The attack has complicated its diplomatic efforts with Gulf countries, especially as anger over the ongoing war in Gaza continues to simmer. The fact that the strike occurred as Hamas leaders were considering a ceasefire proposal has been seen by some as a deliberate attempt to derail peace efforts, though Israeli officials have not publicly commented on their motivations. The long-term consequences of this operation—both for regional security and for the intricate web of alliances and rivalries that define the Middle East—are still unfolding.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the Red Sea missile strike has redrawn the boundaries of what is possible in modern warfare and left both friends and foes alike reevaluating their assumptions about security, diplomacy, and the true cost of technological superiority.