In a recent interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Jared Kushner, former senior adviser to President Donald Trump, and special envoy Steve Witkoff shared insights into their unexpected feelings of betrayal regarding an Israeli airstrike in Qatar aimed at Hamas leadership. This strike, which took place on September 9, 2025, interrupted delicate negotiations crucial for a ceasefire and hostage resolution between Israel and Hamas. The fallout from this military action has raised eyebrows both in the U.S. and internationally, highlighting the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics.
### The Israeli Airstrike and Its Aftermath
The airstrike targeted Hamas officials who were meeting in Doha, a significant player in the negotiations orchestrated to maintain peace between warring factions. Witkoff articulated a sense of disappointment, stating, “I think both Jared and I felt… a little bit betrayed.” This sentiment emphasizes that the Israeli action not only jeopardized ongoing diplomatic efforts but also affected the trust established with key mediators such as Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey.
Kushner elaborated on how this strike caught Trump off guard, shifting his perception of Israeli leadership. He recalled that Trump was becoming increasingly frustrated with Israel, believing they had lost control over their military strategies. The airstrike altered the dynamics of the negotiation landscape, as the Qatari’s faith in the U.S. and Israel was notably shaken.
Witkoff described the implications of this loss of trust, noting that it drove Hamas underground, making it more challenging for negotiators to engage with their leadership.
### Political Repercussions and International Implications
The fallout from the airstrike has reverberated throughout the political landscape in Israel. Opposition Leader Yair Lapid labeled the interview’s revelations as an “earthquake,” underscoring the unprecedented nature of American officials expressing dissatisfaction with an Israeli administration.
Lapid pointed out that this scenario could have been managed differently by considering a governmental arrangement through Egypt, which he believes could have helped combat Hamas more effectively. The failed military action, according to Lapid, also provided space for other nations, specifically Turkey and Qatar—both considered ideological partners of Hamas—to play larger roles in the conflict.
Trump’s strong adverse reaction to the strike manifested in his commitment to defend Qatar in the event of future hostilities. This commitment required a response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was compelled to apologize to Qatar for the poorly executed military action that resulted in minimal casualties among Hamas leaders while still affecting local Qatari personnel.
### Broader Context of U.S.-Israeli Relations
The tension between American interests in the Middle East and Israeli military operations raises critical questions about the future of U.S.-Israeli relations. Historically, the U.S. has been a staunch ally of Israel, often overlooking the country’s military decisions. However, the assertion that Netanyahu’s administration had lost control over its military actions represents a significant shift in this long-standing alliance. Trump’s comments hint at a new era of American diplomacy that could hold Israel to account for its military actions, particularly those that could destabilize other U.S. allies.
### The Role of Qatar in Regional Diplomacy
Qatar’s role as a mediator has evolved significantly due to its relationships with various factions, including Hamas. For years, this Gulf state has provided financial support to Gaza, thereby balancing international pressures with local realities. The Israeli strike undermined Qatar’s credibility as mediator, a situation that complicates U.S. and Israeli strategies in the region.
While Prime Minister Netanyahu had previously relied on Qatar’s financial assistance to Hamas as a means of keeping peace, the airstrike agitated longstanding tensions, altering the region’s power dynamics and making negotiations more complex.
### Conclusion
The interview shared by Kushner and Witkoff encapsulates the intricate web of politics, diplomacy, and military strategy in the Middle East. Their sense of betrayal following the Israeli airstrike demonstrates how crucial communication and trust are within delicate negotiations. The lessons learned from the fallout of September 9 may shape not only Israeli policies in the future but also the role of the U.S. as a mediator in Middle Eastern conflicts. As the geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, these dynamics warrant closer scrutiny from analysts, policymakers, and citizens alike.
Source link
