A Gulf between extreme ideologies and existential agendas

A cowardly act of unjustified “retaliation” pierced the calm skies of the Gulf on the 28th of February 2026, its point of deployment: Iran. At first, many held cautiously to the hope that the attack had been aimed solely at United States military installations. Analysts pointed to Iran’s previous “retaliation” strike on Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base last year, carried out in response to US strikes on its nuclear facilities, and attempted to frame the escalation within the familiar logic of military signalling.

These analytical justifications were soon to disintegrate under the endless barrage of missiles and drones targeting densely populated civilian areas and major energy infrastructure across the Gulf. Realisation dawned quickly and loudly: Iran was not merely sending a message to Washington. It was attempting to debilitate its neighbours by striking critical infrastructure at an unprecedented rate. The United Arab Emirates’ air defences alone have so far detected over 1,700 ballistic missiles and drones.

Shocking as this assault has been, the fact remains that the region’s political climate had been simmering for some time. The boiling point was always a matter of when, not if. Anwar Gargash, Diplomatic Adviser to the UAE President, explained recently that the UAE had been aware for months that the region was heading toward a crisis. “Once we saw that the negotiations had failed, we knew the drums of war had begun to beat,” he said, referring to the collapse of US-Iranian nuclear negotiations. The trajectory was clear. The region had been steered toward confrontation through a pattern of political thuggery — navigated by Israel and driven by the United States — leading inevitably toward a crossroads of destruction.

Under Donald Trump’s leadership, diplomacy has been reduced to a schoolyard fight where no rules apply and victory belongs to whoever draws blood first. Political analysis often speaks of flashpoints and boiling points, yet the journey between the two is long and complex, shaped by negotiations, compromises, and fragile understandings. In recent years, those mechanisms were repeatedly brushed aside by both Washington and Trump’s declared “main priority in the Middle East”: Israel. History serves as a roadmap for political ambitions, and precedents shape the conduct of those who follow. Israel’s disproportionate retaliation in Gaza — carried out with the blessing of the United States and resulting in two years of devastation of genocidal proportions — set a dangerous precedent. As the bombardment continued without meaningful resistance from the international community, a new standard for American foreign policy quietly took hold: power without accountability.

From that point forward, decisions appeared increasingly detached from international law and indifferent to national sovereignty.

Peacekeeping through diplomacy was never the cornerstone of this administration’s strategy. Its posture has been conquest-oriented from the beginning, with force treated as the primary instrument of persuasion. Governments across the world attempted to navigate around this abrasive style of governance, adjusting their diplomatic strategies in hopes of preserving stability. In Washington, however, such restraint was interpreted not as prudence but as weakness.

With its precedents set and its priorities fixated on Israel’s dominance, the United States ignited an entire region with little regard for the consequences its strikes on Iran would have for its long-standing allies in the Gulf.

It was the geopolitical equivalent of kicking a hornet’s nest.

The Gulf states now find themselves caught between competing ideologies and existential agendas, bearing the brunt of a war they have spent years trying to avoid. Iran’s decision to target Gulf nations is both baseless and reckless, violating the most fundamental laws governing armed conflict.

For decades, the Gulf countries have navigated their relationship with Iran cautiously, fully aware that they share their neighbourhood with a regime often characterised by ideological rigidity and unpredictable diplomacy. Yet rather than allowing that volatility to dictate their future, these states — particularly the United Arab Emirates — have pursued stability through pragmatism.

The wisdom of the UAE’s leadership has been evident in its careful stewardship of regional relations. By respecting the delicate rhythms of geopolitics, the country has managed not only to coexist with a volatile neighbour but also to build one of the most dynamic and prosperous economies in the world.

The UAE’s foreign policy has always been anchored in principles of peace, tolerance, and cooperation —and it remains so today.

Almost two weeks into relentless bombardment, the nation stands alert and firmly in control. It has resisted being drawn into the reckless war that others appear eager to expand. That restraint is not weakness; it is resilience.

Retaliation would be the easier path, and perhaps even the more emotionally satisfying one. But the UAE’s broader vision — one rooted in stability, prosperity, and a better future for the region — demands something far more difficult: discipline.

In that discipline lies its strength.