Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Monday evening that contacts between him and US envoy Steve Witkoff “continued before and after the protests, and are still ongoing.”
Iran is “ready for all options,” Araghchi told the Qatar-based Al Jazeera television.
The top diplomat expressed hope that Washington would choose “the wise option,” amid ongoing exchanges between the two sides.
“Some ideas are on the table with Washington and are currently being studied” by Tehran, he said, without giving further details.
However, he stressed that “it is not possible to combine the ideas proposed by Washington with its launching of threats against our country.”
On the possibility of a direct meeting with Witkoff, Araghchi said “there are ideas being discussed,” according to Anadolu.
The White House views Israel’s assassination of Al-Qassam leader, Raed Saad, as a violation of the Gaza ceasefire brokered by US President Donald Trump, two US officials told Axios.
The officials said the White House sent a stern private message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the strike.
Israel murdered Raed Saad on Saturday in Gaza City. Israel calls Saad the deputy commander of Hamas’ military wing. The attack murdered four people in total.
US officials said Israel did not notify or consult Washington before the strike.
“The White House message to Netanyahu was clear,” a senior US official said. “If you want to ruin your reputation and show you do not abide by agreements, be our guest. But we will not allow you to ruin President Trump’s reputation after he brokered the Gaza deal.”
An Israeli official confirmed that the White House expressed anger. The official claimed the message was softer and cited concerns from “certain Arab countries.” US officials rejected that account and said the White House was unequivocal that Israel violated the ceasefire.
The development comes as Israel continues to reject moving to the second phase of Trump’s ceasefire agreement to end the genocide in Gaza.
Israeli media reported ongoing resistance inside Netanyahu’s government to advancing the next phase. An Israeli security source told the public broadcaster that implementing the second phase “remains far from achievable.”
Netanyahu is expected to meet President Trump at Mar-a-Lago on December 29.
Meanwhile, Israeli forces continued daily ceasefire violations on Monday. Naval boats opened heavy fire toward Gaza’s coast. Israeli aircraft launched an airstrike alongside intense artillery shelling east of Khan Younis. Artillery fire also hit areas east of al-Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza.
Hamas condemned the Israeli violations and called on mediators and guarantor states to intervene. The movement said Israel seeks to undermine and sabotage the agreement.
Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya reaffirmed commitment to the ceasefire in a recorded speech marking the movement’s 38th anniversary. He said starting the second phase is a top priority to secure full Israeli withdrawal.
Al-Hayya said any international forces in Gaza should focus only on maintaining the ceasefire and separating the two sides at Gaza’s borders. He stressed that resistance and its weapons remain a legitimate right under international law and are tied to establishing a Palestinian state.
Al-Qassam Brigades said Israel’s assassination of Saad represents a blatant breach of the ceasefire. The group said Israel crossed all red lines by targeting its leaders and civilians and by continuing military aggression.
Al-Qassam said Israel is disregarding President Trump’s plan and held him and the mediators responsible. The group affirmed its right to respond and defend itself by all means.
The first phase of the Gaza ceasefire began on October 10 after two years of Israeli genocide that killed more than 70,000 Palestinians and destroyed most civilian infrastructure.
Despite the agreement, Israel continues airstrikes, alters the agreed withdrawal line known as the Yellow Line, and restricts vital humanitarian aid to Gaza’s population according to the Quds News Network.
The United States faces a sensitive equation in the Middle East. On one side, a strong strategic alliance with Israel, built on military and intelligence superiority. On the other, a deep economic and security partnership with Arab states, which control oil, gas, key waterways, and sovereign wealth funds. Yet Washington still treats Arabs as financial and energy suppliers, while granting Israel unconditional superiority. The question is: How long can this continue before America pays a strategic price?
Since the 1970s, oil has been tied to the U.S. dollar through the petrodollar system. This made the dollar the backbone of the global financial order and allowed Washington to finance deficits while keeping global dominance. But the landscape is shifting. BRICS seeks to reduce reliance on the dollar. With Saudi Arabia and the UAE joining, Arabs now have direct influence on the future of global finance. Any move to price oil in other currencies could shake the foundations of U.S. power.
Meanwhile, Israel—backed by open U.S. support—pushes Netanyahu’s vision of a “New Middle East.” The plan is clear: destroy Gaza, swallow the West Bank, fund the displacement of Palestinians, and strike Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, and Yemen. Even Gulf states are no longer outside the danger zone, as Israeli threats expand across the region.
Israel has little economic weight compared to the Arabs, but it enjoys political and military privileges that make it a forward base for Washington. Arabs, by contrast, hold powerful cards: oil and gas, the Suez Canal, Bab al-Mandab, the Strait of Hormuz, and sovereign funds with hundreds of billions in U.S. markets. Used together within a united stance, these cards can rebalance U.S. policy toward Israel.
The pressure is not only economic. The U.S. operates dozens of military bases in the Gulf, Jordan, and Turkey. If Arabs link these facilities to Washington’s position on the conflict, the cost of bias will rise. At the same time, Arabs are no longer just oil producers. They are key players in renewable energy and green hydrogen, shaping the future of global energy markets.
Inside the U.S., the Israeli narrative no longer dominates unchallenged. A growing movement among youth, universities, and independent media rejects blind support for Israel, especially after the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. This has fueled mass protests, political pressure, and divisions inside the Democratic Party between the old guard and a younger generation more critical of Israel. Arabs can build on this by engaging think tanks, universities, and Arab-American communities.
In Europe, the EU cannot ignore its vital interests with the Arab world in energy, trade, and investment. Public anger over Gaza is rising. Arabs have an opportunity to unify their message and push Europe toward greater independence from Washington. Linking access to Arab markets with balanced political positions could turn sympathy into official pressure on Israel from within its Western allies.
At the international level, Israeli actions no longer pass without scrutiny. The UN Security Council has issued repeated condemnations, despite Washington’s vetoes. The latest vote reaffirmed the two-state solution as the only path to peace, highlighting Israel’s growing isolation. A united Arab stance could transform this consensus into real leverage, combining international legitimacy with Arab economic power.
In the end, the ball is in the Arabs’ court. They hold the tools to impose a new balance and secure a fair solution for Palestine. If they act with unity and resolve, they can curb Israeli arrogance and reshape the region. If not, the cost will fall on Arab citizens—through weaker economies, shrinking wages, and eroded sovereignty—while the future of the Middle East is written without them.
“This is a message to the entire Middle East,” Israeli Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana said in response to the Israeli airstrike that targeted Hamas leaders in the heart of the Qatari capital, Doha.
However, this statement is not merely a comment on the military operation strike into a declared strategic message, telling the entire region, and primarily the Gulf, that Israel, in partnership with Washington, has become the master of the decision-making process in the region.
Ohana’s statement is an explicit and direct threat that leaves no room for interpretation, reflecting the new deterrence doctrine adopted by Tel Aviv: No red lines, no geographical immunities, and no Western allies outside the confines of Israeli dictates. Simply put, anyone who disagrees with us becomes a legitimate target, even if they are in the heart of a friendly capital that hosts the largest American military base.
This makes for a dangerous conclusion: Israel no longer views the Gulf states as partners in stability, but rather as “open arenas for fiery messages.” Washington is blessing the silence, participating in complicity, and mocking the Arabs.
Naked dominance
And don’t forget the Israeli crime in the heart of the Gulf marks the beginning of a new era of naked dominance. It’s not a traditional security operation, but a pivotal turning point in the rules of regional engagement, in which Qatar has been embarrassed both on the Arab level and internationally.
Israel has now publicly placed itself in a circle (no longer concealing its intentions) – through bombing and military strikes – that it no longer sees a distinction between political geography and the theater of operations. More dangerously, the heart of the Gulf today has become openly subject to Tel Aviv’s fire. And who can challenge it?
The strike wasn’t an intelligence leak or a silent targeting, but a direct airstrike in an area teeming with embassies, schools, and residential buildings, in a country that is a major ally of Washington and a pillar of American security in the Middle East.
Thus the message has become clear to everyone: No one is above attack… no state, no sovereignty, no partnership.
The US administration, led by Donald Trump, evaded with a series of conflicting statements about its prior knowledge of the operation. But whether it knew and blessed it, knew and remained silent, knew too late, or did not know at all, the outcome is the same: The American cover was removed, Gulf confidence eroded, and billions perished. The statements of the US embassy in Doha did not go beyond expressions of caution to American citizens, while White House statements swayed between “regret over the location” to “understanding the goal of eliminating terrorism.”
I believe the opposite message was conveyed to the Gulf capitals: Your security is not a priority, and your sovereignty does not equate to a clear position from Washington. The question that now arises however is: Why Qatar? Why now? Why was the strike carried out in Qatar and not in Turkey, or Iran for example? This is despite the fact that the Hamas leaders that were targeted had just returned from Istanbul, suggesting Tel Aviv chose the location not arbitrarily but with deep political awareness. Tel Aviv did not pull the trigger in Istanbul, even though the targeted leaders passed through it only hours earlier.
Turkey, with all its military, political, and international complexity, is not a testing ground for Israeli madness. There are red lines that even Tel Aviv dares not cross… and Turkey is one of them. The potential Turkish military response, the internal Turkish explosion during a highly sensitive election season, and the delicate balance of power within NATO rendered Turkish territory “operationally closed” even to the most violent wings of Israeli decision-making. But when the targeted figures left Istanbul for Doha, everything changed.
Qatar, like other threatened Arab states, in the Israeli security and intelligence mindset, is merely an intermediate gray area, neither neutral nor classified as an “enemy,” potentially a shocking target at a low cost. This is something all Arab decision-makers should be aware of.
From Tel Aviv’s perspective, Qatar is balancing contradictory roles, managing mediation, funding aid, and hosting parties that anger Israel without possessing a genuine deterrent umbrella. There are no international calculations that could prevent a surgical strike carried out within hours. Merely hosting an American base does not make Doha “immune,” but may even further tempt Tel Aviv, proving that decision-making in the region is no longer solely in Washington’s hands but in Tel Aviv as well.
In short, Israel needed a platform to send the biggest message since the Gaza war… so it chose the weakest link, amid the silence of its strongest ally.
Here, we can pause a moment at the Knesset member’s statement that the operation was “a message to the Middle East.” This is not a slip of the tongue, but a strategic doctrine upon which future decisions are based. Israel is telling all countries in the region that whoever harbors Hamas, or even engages in dialogue with it, will be next.
If the Arab states fail to take a firm political stand, the Doha precedent will be repeated elsewhere. It may not be Hamas’s mediation that stands accuse but rather the concepts of neutrality, balance, and even dialogue with parties Tel Aviv disapproves of and which then could become sufficient justification for a strike. It’s a policy of punishment.
This scene is posing existential questions for Arab capitals. If Qatar, Washington’s most important ally, is being bombed over the heads of its own people, after Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza… should we wait for Iraq’s turn? Riyadh? Abu Dhabi? Kuwait? And others? Does the American umbrella truly protect us, or is it used only when our interests intersect with Israel’s?
And what is the point of hosting American bases if they do not prevent airspace violations? Or provide protection?
What happened in Doha is pushing the region to crossroads: Either continuing its position of dependency and timid mediation, or repositioning strategically and developing independent air defenses, which is logistically difficult, or seeking alternative alliances (Ankara, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran?), and establishing red lines that Tel Aviv will not cross.
Qatar now faces difficult choices: Will it withdraw from the Hamas mediation? Will it demand real security guarantees? Will it go further, toward symbolic deterrence or unconventional partnerships? Or will it pay the price of protection once again?
Beware: A war of wills is beginning now. The Israeli airstrike in Doha was not just a blow to Hamas, but also a slap in the face to the sovereignty of the Gulf and the region, an undermining of the prestige of international law and its signed, ratified, and binding agreements, and an insult to the concept of the alleged strategic partnership with America.
This is the beginning of a new era, one in which Israel and Washington declare that the security of the region is no longer an Arab decision. The question now is: Will the Arabs as a whole wake up before “Ohana’s message” reaches other capitals? Perhaps.
The author is a political writer based in Amman Jordan and contributed this article to the Al Rai Alyoum Arabic website
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a politician above all else. He is dogmatist in rejecting a Palestinian state, and a pragmatist when he talks about it, but all that depends on the position taken by the United States.
Ever since one can remember from the days of the Oslo Agreements, a Palestinian state, as a term swung between two conceptions: A future project on the ground, and a slogan up-in-the-air to pander on, and as many from my generation remember the rather acerbic comment: Gaza-Jericho First of 1993 which came to be the first and the last.
The Israeli government of that time, believed that it would bring the Palestinians to independenance as interlocutors in determining the occupied West Bank of Jordan that came about by discussing the issue through a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.
However, the little that was agreed upon started to be eroded by the first Netanyahu government, which at times implicitly and at times explicitly acted in the way so as to negate the Oslo agreements with impunity.
One would like to say that since then plenty of water has passed under the bridge, but when it comes to the Palestinian issue, it’s always the same water and the same bridge.
At this point one must say that everywhere in the media there are supposedly leaks and plans about the day after with regards to the Gaza Strip. However, the only consensus between the international community at large and officialdom of the Arab world, is that Hamas should surrender its weapons. But really what happens next?
Silence in the Arab world rules the scene which is in a way saying what cannot be said, which is in other words don’t involve us directly but we shall try to do what we can. This is habitually the Arab position in always being reactive rather than active.
And now on the international scene is the big drive to recognize a Palestinian state, which is for the time being affirming a point of principle, and towards which Israel is actually debating the annexation of the West Bank, as if to say, if the West Bank is reoccupied by Israel, where is this Palestine you want to recognize?
And adding insult to injury, the Washington administration has refused entry to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the PNA leadership to attend the UN General Assembly meetings. This indicates that it does not recognize that there is a leadership of the Palestinians.
However, and despite saying this, one wishes to be able to say that we might be jumping the proverbial gun, in the sense that, the issue is just a matter of tit-for-tat telling states: You recognize Palestine we take measures to counter that, but alas the Israeli annexation was contemplated long before the international recognition of a Palestinian state.
Now, what will it mean if Israel does go ahead and annexes the West Bank and cancels the Palestinian authority? Well, once again the international community, to the exclusion of the USA, will have to consider the West Bank as and Israeli occupied territory, and once again, the world will have to go back to the Security Council for an attempt to resolve the issue.
Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian columnist living in Paris, France.
CrossFireArabia
Dr Khairi Janbek
