The UAE's Rejection of Using Its Territory Against Iran Reveals a Strategic Shift in the Gulf

Last week, the United Arab Emirates announced that it would not allow its airspace, territory, or territorial waters to be used for any military action against Iran, nor would it provide logistical support for such operations. This announcement came at a highly sensitive time, with the arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its strike group in the region on January 26, and the escalation of U.S.-Iranian tensions to levels not seen since the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

An Analysis of the UAE's Position

Practically speaking, this announcement is not surprising for those who have been following the strategic shifts in Abu Dhabi over recent years. The UAE, which has long been considered the most enthusiastic ally of U.S. policy in the Gulf, is now adopting a more independent stance. The reasons are clear to any military personnel who have served in the region: any U.S. strike on Iran would inevitably mean a retaliatory response from Iran against the countries from which those strikes originated.

Reports indicate that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Egypt have warned Washington that Iran retains short-range ballistic missiles and launch platforms ready for use against U.S. interests in the Gulf. The collective memory in the region has not yet forgotten the Iranian attack on Ain al-Asad base in Iraq in January 2020, or the strike on Al Udeid base in Qatar in June 2025.

Economic and Security Calculations

Dubai is a global financial hub through which a significant portion of Iranian trade passes despite sanctions. Abu Dhabi has invested billions in its tourism and financial infrastructure. Any military escalation in the Strait of Hormuz or the Arabian Gulf would cost the UAE severe economic losses before the first shell lands on its territory. These are simple calculations that do not require complex analysis.

On the other hand, the UAE hosts more than 3,500 U.S. soldiers on its territory, including at Al Dhafra Air Base, from which F-35s and MQ-9 reconnaissance aircraft operate. The question that is not publicly asked is: what does the UAE's announcement practically mean if U.S. forces are already present on its territory?

A Different Saudi Stance on the Surface

Saudi Arabia has called for a peaceful diplomatic solution, a position consistent with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's policy in recent years to avoid direct confrontations. Riyadh will attend a meeting in Turkey on Friday alongside the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt, in a Gulf-Arab attempt to mediate between Washington and Tehran.

However, the Saudi situation differs from that of the UAE. The Kingdom faces a direct threat from Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen and has a long history of hostility with Tehran. In my view, the Saudi call for diplomacy stems from the realization that any regional war would be catastrophic for Vision 2030 and economic transformation projects, rather than from a fundamental shift in relations with Iran.

The Iranian Threat Redraws the Map

Iran deployed the Khorramshahr-4 long-range missile in an underground facility on February 5, announcing a shift in its military doctrine from defense to offense. The Commander of the Iranian Army, Abdolrahim Mousavi, warned that Iran is ready to deliver retaliatory strikes against U.S. forces and their allies, while Major General Mohammad Pakpour, commander of the Revolutionary Guard, threatened that "our finger is on the trigger."

The Central Command of the Revolutionary Guard went further, warning that it would "destroy" countries that support U.S. operations. This direct threat largely explains the speed of the UAE's announcement.

The Dilemma of U.S. Bases

The United States has a massive military infrastructure in the Gulf: Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which hosts over 10,000 troops, Al Dhafra Air Base in the UAE, the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, in addition to a presence in Kuwait and Iraq. Theoretically, Washington could conduct operations from aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea without the need for land bases.

But the operational reality is more complex than that. Any sustainable air campaign requires a ground logistical infrastructure. The question now is: will Washington respect the wishes of its Gulf allies if it decides to escalate? Or are these announcements merely a diplomatic cover that does not change the reality on the ground?

Beyond Official Announcements

From my long-term observation of Gulf affairs, the gap between diplomatic rhetoric and actual practice is always wide. Gulf states will not be able to prevent the United States from using their bases if Washington insists on doing so—defense agreements and mutual dependence make that practically impossible. However, these announcements serve an important purpose: to send a message to Iran that the Gulf states are not partners in any potential aggression, in the hope that this will spare them from retaliation.

The irony is that this strategy assumes Iranian rationality in targeting—which is an assumption that has not always proven to be correct. If Tehran decides to respond to a U.S. strike, it is unlikely to distinguish between the countries that "allowed" the operations and those that "publicly rejected" them.

The fundamental contradiction in the Gulf situation has not changed for decades: reliance on U.S. protection from Iran, while wanting to avoid becoming a battleground in any U.S.-Iranian confrontation. This impossible equation has no solution as long as Iran remains a threat and U.S. forces are a security guarantee.