The United Arab Emirates, which has yet to provide clear answers regarding the extent of its cooperation with the US and the Israeli regime during the Ramadan War against Iran and the consequences of the Manama meeting, has once again entered a phase of actions viewed as inconsistent with the principles of good neighborly relations. The UAE Ministry of Defense claimed that two ballistic missiles had been launched by Iran towards its territory, after which the country’s Foreign Ministry announced the suspension of activities as well as trade and financial exchanges with Iran until further notice.
These claims and measures appear less rooted in developments on the ground and more within the framework of Abu Dhabi’s efforts to divert public attention from its role in recent regional developments; particularly as Iranian officials have formally rejected any action against the UAE. Iran has also demonstrated that when it conducts military operations, it openly and officially accepts responsibility for them. Therefore, making claims without presenting credible evidence is inconsistent with the requirements of good neighborly relations and the realities on the ground.
Shadow of the Manama Meeting Over Abu Dhabi’s Actions
The significance of the issue becomes clearer when the UAE’s recent claims are viewed alongside its earlier political moves. Discussions between Abu Dhabi officials and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as Donald Trump’s phone call with Mohammed bin Zayed before the anti-Iran accusations were made, raise serious questions about the background and motivations behind these actions.
Published reports, including a report by the Wall Street Journal, also overlap with parts of Nournews’ earlier report regarding the 17 June meeting between Mohammed bin Zayed, Brad Cooper and a Mossad adviser, with Rubio participating online. According to these reports, the meeting addressed issues including preventing the consolidation of an understanding between Tehran and Washington and Iran’s role in the Strait of Hormuz.
If this assessment is accurate, Abu Dhabi’s recent claims cannot be viewed merely as a temporary political stance; rather, they should be considered part of a chain of actions that could affect regional security and diplomatic processes.
UAE: From Miscalculation to Regional Isolation
Recent developments indicate that the UAE continues to rely on the assumption that closer ties with the US and the Israeli regime can secure its position in regional equations. The security agreement between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey, which represents a significant setback to Abu Dhabi’s ambitions to play a security role in the region, could have provided an opportunity to reconsider this approach. However, recent actions show no sign of a change in direction.
Military and intelligence cooperation with the Israeli regime, the deployment of defense systems, claims regarding alternative energy routes, involvement in developments in Sudan, support for certain separatist groups in Yemen and cooperation in projects related to Somaliland are only part of a broader set of actions that critics view as Abu Dhabi’s attempt to preserve its regional role through reliance on extra-regional actors.
Such an approach, at a time when many countries in the region consider restoring calm in the Strait of Hormuz and reducing the economic costs of tensions to be a necessity, could impose significant political and security costs on the UAE.
Playing with Fire: Building a Front Against Iran
The timing of the UAE’s recent moves alongside claims made by officials in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, allegations by Kuwait and Bahrain, and developments linked to the Ukraine war strengthens the possibility that Washington, unable to bear the heavy financial and human costs of a direct war, is seeking to open multiple fronts to weaken Iran’s capabilities.
However, such moves will not go unnoticed by Iran. Tehran’s measure is not based on statements and declared positions, but on the actual conduct of countries. Gulf countries that emphasize they will not allow their territories to be used against Iran must recognize that the presence of large numbers of military aircraft, particularly aerial refueling aircraft, at regional bases without the knowledge or consent of host countries would be a difficult claim to accept.
Any facilitation of US military operations against Iran could be viewed by Tehran as participation in those operations and may result in an appropriate response. US actions have also pushed Iran away from a solely defensive and tension-management strategy towards a more deterrence-oriented and punitive approach; a strategy that, alongside management of the Strait of Hormuz, could have broader preventive dimensions.
The clear message for regional countries is this: the roots of the current crises must be sought in the policies of the US and the Israeli regime. Playing on their side will bring neither security nor stability; rather, it increases the risk that regional countries will pay the heavy cost of great-power competition with their own security and stability.