In recent coverage of U.S.-Israel relations in the American media, Seth Mandel detects a leitmotif: the White House can’t seem to manage to get the stubborn Israelis to follow its orders. This (supposed) problem was, for instance, put forcefully before Kamala Harris by Bill Whitaker of CBS. Mandel observes:

Vice-President Harris could easily have rejected the premise of the question. . . . But Harris didn’t want to reject the premise, so she gave an incoherent answer implicitly reinforcing the idea that the administration believes it has the right to dictate policy to Israel.

But, Mandel notes, the evidence brought by reporters like Whitaker in fact suggests that the real problem lies elsewhere:

President Biden’s problem, it turns out, isn’t Israel’s defiance— it’s Iran’s defiance. Israel resisted going into Gaza until Hamas got tired of waiting and invaded Israel instead. Israel didn’t go into Lebanon until Iran made clear that it would be the only way to return displaced Israelis to their homes in the north. Iran-backed attacks have continued also from Iraq and Yemen, as well as from Iran itself.

Nobody has been asking Biden or Harris why the Iranians don’t listen to them. . . . Does the U.S. have sway over anybody? A major obstacle to getting an answer to the question about U.S. influence is that we only seem to ask it about the one country under assault and surrounded by genocidal enemies: Israel.

Small in area and population and rich in natural gas, Qatar plays an outsize role in the Middle East. While its support keeps Hamas in business, it also has vital relations with Israel that are much better than those enjoyed by many other Arab countries. Doha’s relationship with Washington, though more complex, isn’t so different. Yoel Guzansky offers a comprehensive examination of Israel’s Qatar dilemma:

At first glance, Qatar’s foreign policy seems filled with contradictions. Since 1995, it has pursued a strategy of diplomatic hedging—building relationships with multiple, often competing, actors. Qatar’s vast wealth and close ties with the United States have enabled it to maneuver independently on the international stage, maintaining relations with rival factions, including those that are direct adversaries.

Qatar plays an active role in international diplomacy, engaging in conflict mediation in over twenty regions worldwide. While not all of its mediation efforts have been successful, they have helped boost its international prestige, which it considers vital for its survival among larger and more powerful neighbors. Qatar has participated in mediation efforts in Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones, reinforcing its image as a neutral broker.

Israel’s stated objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza is fundamentally at odds with Qatar’s interest in keeping Hamas as the governing force. In theory, if the Israeli hostages would to be released, Israel could break free from its dependence on Qatari mediation. However, it is likely that even after such a development, Qatar will continue positioning itself as a mediator—particularly in enforcing agreements and shaping Gaza’s reconstruction efforts.

Qatar’s position is strengthened further by its good relations with the U.S. Yet, Guzansky notes, it has weaknesses as well that Israel could exploit:

Qatar is highly sensitive to its global image and prides itself on maintaining a neutral diplomatic posture. If Israel chooses to undermine Qatar’s reputation, it could target specific aspects of Qatari activity that are problematic from an Israeli perspective.