The Calculus of Betrayal: Abu Dhabi’s Mirage and the Scorn of Arab Solidarity
By Mohamad Hammoud
Lebanon – Behind the gleaming skyline, the United Arab Emirates cynically trades Arab allegiance for self-serving strategic gain, quietly backing military actions and regional proxies.
On a blistering May afternoon, as “Israeli” bombs rained down on Gaza’s al-Rimal district, an Emirati C-17 cargo jet reportedly landed at Nevatim Air Base. Reports indicated the aircraft was carrying “Israeli”-made drones refitted in Abu Dhabi, later used to relay infrared feeds above Rafah to “Israeli” command posts. This image—of an Emirati aircraft supporting an “Israeli” military operation while Palestinian neighborhoods burned, hospitals were shelled, and civilians fled—exposes a stark contradiction in Abu Dhabi’s foreign policy: the UAE presents itself as a modern, tolerant nation while simultaneously enabling violence abroad, carrying out lethal interventions discreetly to avoid the moral censure of the Muslim world.
The New Axis: Normalization as Militarization
After 2014, Emirati leaders, viewing US outreach to Iran as a security vacuum, pursued a quiet security partnership with “Israel.” This shift was motivated by a desire to guarantee protection and suppress political Islam, which the Emirate’s ruling class views as an existential threat. Reporting in Foreign Policy and investigative outlets documented how the Abraham Accords unlocked access to sophisticated “Israeli” surveillance, intelligence and defense technologies, which Abu Dhabi quickly utilized to meddle in other countries’ affairs. This normalization was not diplomacy; it was militarization outsourced. This cynical approach set a pattern: secure influence abroad while avoiding direct risk at home, using proxies and strategic alliances to extend a damaging geopolitical reach.
Yemen: The Proxy Proving Ground
Yemen became the initial testing ground for this aggressive doctrine. Joining the Saudi-led coalition in 2015, the UAE quickly pursued its own independent strategy—seizing southern ports, training local militias, and establishing bases at key maritime chokepoints. Reports from Reuters and The New York Times documented the deployment of foreign mercenaries and surveillance hubs, which critics claimed were later enhanced with “Israeli” expertise. This campaign secured vital maritime routes for the UAE and its strategic partners, including “Israel” and the US, although critics argued that it primarily aimed at commercial control of the Red Sea corridor at a significant cost to civilians.
Sudan’s Lethal Extraction
The same remote-control model was also observed in Sudan. A July 2024 article in Foreign Affairs titled “The UAE’s Secret War in Sudan,” by John Prendergast and Anthony Lake, reported that Abu Dhabi provided financial support and weapons to the paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces [RSF], which has been linked to mass atrocities. Investigations traced these shipments, often disguised as humanitarian aid, through a network of complex front companies that sought to obscure the Emirati regime’s involvement.
The motives behind this support are clear: Abu Dhabi seeks to control Sudan’s gold resources and gain access to strategic Red Sea ports, as highlighted by Peoples Dispatch. Politically, the goal is to prevent any future government in Khartoum from aligning with Islamist or pro-Palestinian movements that could threaten Abu Dhabi’s regional dominance. Sudan illustrates that this aggressive strategy can be replicated and executed from a distance and is closely tied to securing both economic and ideological supremacy, often at a substantial human cost.
The Betrayal Unveiled
The same opportunistic logic applies to the war in Gaza. Since the Abraham Accords, intelligence and commercial ties with “Israel” have grown, as reported by Ynetnews and Al Jazeera. During recent “Israeli” offensives, Abu Dhabi presented itself as a neutral humanitarian mediator while quietly maintaining alliances that support “Israeli” operations against Hamas. For many Arabs, this stance was seen as an apparent betrayal: a wealthy nation choosing to side with Tel Aviv over the lives of Palestinians. The alliance with “Israel” enables the Emirates to exert influence beyond its limited physical size.
The question of why a state with fewer than ten million residents would extend its reach so far is answered by its vast wealth and the deep insecurity of its elite. Concerned about potential internal unrest, the ruling elite utilizes sovereign wealth funds to buy external influence and leverages “Israeli” technology for protection. This creates an exportable security model: invest capital, supply proxies, import intelligence, and avoid direct military risks. However, these advantages come at a cost that is borne by human lives across the region. These tactics undermine the Emirates’ moral authority and stir significant, lasting resentment throughout the Arab world. The coming years will test whether Abu Dhabi’s cynical façade can withstand the weight of the devastation it has caused.
