Nournews: In recent days, the United Arab Emirates has once again become a major news headline—though not due to economic indicators or constructive regional engagement. Rather, it has emerged in a manner that runs counter to the principle of good neighborliness and unfolds on a stage that, more than anything, exposes the dependency and miscalculations of the country’s rulers.
According to reports citing Emirati officials, claims about Iranian military threats against the UAE have increased, alongside a growing inclination toward the United States and the Zionist regime to counter these alleged threats—including claims of military attacks on Fujairah and the UAE’s petrochemical industries. This media and propaganda approach, more than reflecting the country’s actual capacity as a regional actor, stems from internal crises and the continuation of a strategic miscalculation: playing on the American-Zionist field to preserve a fragile, glass-like power structure. Such power not only fails to enhance regional stability but exacerbates its fragility, inevitably imposing heavy—and potentially irreversible—costs on the UAE. This is especially true given that, on the one hand, the United States has proven to be an unreliable partner, and on the other, Tehran has emphasized that its strategic patience and restraint have come to an end, and that any threat will be met with the harshest and most asymmetric responses.
The Meaningful Convergence of External Tension and Internal Fractures
The UAE’s growing pattern of tension-building—marked by a mix of threatening claims and symbolic displays of power—has intensified at a time when its coincidence with certain internal developments warrants serious reflection. In an unprecedented statement—laden with political and legal implications that signal a deep-rooted crisis and an exposed wound no longer possible to conceal—Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan wrote in a message on the social media platform “X” that: “Responsibility is a trust, and any official who thinks only of personal success or does not strive for the success of others in the country is not a true trustee.”
Such remarks, containing language that hints at warnings of divergence and even fragmentation, reflect fundamental shifts in the UAE’s governance structure—shifts rooted in longstanding disputes, the consequences of recent regional developments, and divisions among elites, decision-makers, and policy shapers over how the country should be governed.
Given the UAE’s internal challenges, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the country may be attempting to divert public attention from domestic instability—and prevent internal collapse—through the construction of external enemies and actions such as withdrawing from OPEC, reigniting crises in Yemen, and escalating tensions with Saudi Arabia. Experience, however, shows that incoherent structures lacking popular support tend to accelerate toward collapse under heightened tension.
A Repeated Strategic Error: Reliance on Unreliable Actors
The intensification of the UAE’s negative role in the region coincides notably with claims by Donald Trump regarding “humanitarian escort” operations in the Strait of Hormuz, alongside crisis-inducing and irrational behavior aimed at reopening a passage in the strait—actions that have met with a firm response from Iran. It appears that UAE leaders have yet to learn from past U.S. betrayals of Arab countries, including prioritizing Israel and fueling the so-called Ramadan war, and continue to operate under the illusion of preserving their fragile power within a glass chamber reliant on American support.
On one hand, this tension-building may serve as a pretext for U.S. and Israeli military escalation against Iran, potentially bypassing Congress under the guise of supporting a regional ally. On the other, it may function as a cover for Trump’s series of failures, by diverting public opinion toward a fabricated narrative of “the UAE’s resistance against Iran” and promoting the necessity of U.S. support.
This flawed approach becomes even more pronounced when CNN, citing an Emirati official, claims that Abu Dhabi expects the United States and Israel to launch another attack on Iran.
Costly Alignment with the Zionist Regime: From Security Cooperation to Legitimate Threat
The UAE’s tension-escalating conduct in the region indicates a continued willingness to operate within the framework of the Zionist regime—an act considered a major betrayal of the region and the Islamic world, and one that legitimizes punitive measures by regional countries against it.
While Financial Times had previously reported the deployment of Israeli systems in the UAE, CNN has also claimed, citing informed sources, that an Israeli interception system stationed in the UAE participated on Monday in attempts to intercept missiles targeting Fujairah.
Given what is described as the terrorist and war-driven nature of the Zionist regime against regional security, any cooperation by the UAE—including granting territorial or airspace access—effectively constitutes participation in its agenda. Such actions render the UAE a legitimate target in the eyes of those concerned with regional security and supporters of Palestine. Accordingly, the silence of Emirati leaders regarding such reports is not a sign of disassociation, but rather an implicit endorsement of these collaborations—collaborations whose security consequences will ultimately be borne by the UAE itself, leaving no room for complaint.
Strategic Consequences of a Dangerous Game for the UAE and the Region
Responding to any threat is Iran’s legitimate right under international law. Furthermore, the Ramadan war has demonstrated that Tehran will respond forcefully to any threat. What occurred at the UAE’s oil facilities was not a premeditated Iranian plan, but rather the result of U.S. crisis-driven adventurism aimed at reopening a passage in the Strait of Hormuz—responsibility for which lies with Washington.
There is broad consensus in Iran that the Islamic Republic itself constitutes a “sanctuary,” and that its security is a non-negotiable principle. American “pirates,” who have effectively taken global shipping and energy security hostage, should understand that complex, hybrid, and asymmetric operations deep within the field will alter the equation in ways that push the cost of their decisions beyond tolerable limits.
Iran has demonstrated both the capacity and the will to enforce this equation. According to data compiled by the so-called Iran War Cost Tracker, U.S. expenditures in a war against Iran have exceeded $70 billion, while Brent crude prices have reached $120 per barrel.
Leaders of Arab countries and U.S. allies must arrive at a rational and realistic understanding: playing on the American-Zionist field no longer produces security. The “glass chamber” of U.S. security guarantees has shattered. The only viable path forward for regional states is to end the U.S. presence, move toward convergence with Iran within a framework of indigenous security, and accept Iran’s smart management of the Strait of Hormuz as a stabilizing factor for the region—and even for the global order.
Nournews