as the Arab world’s two most influential powers turn against one another, a young era of Middle East cooperation is at risk of ending early.
It started as a spat over the movement of United Arab Emirates-backed southern Yemeni separatists toward the Saudi border. But it quickly spiraled into what some observers are calling a diplomatic “divorce” between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, laying bare their rival approaches for the region and competition for leadership.
The two deep-pocketed Gulf countries’ contrasting visions of achieving Middle East stability – from Yemen to Sudan, and from Libya to Syria – are colliding, ostensibly over support for states versus non-state actors.
Why We Wrote This
A spat over Yemen has spiraled into what is being called a diplomatic “divorce” between the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, both of which are vying to lead the Middle East into a new era of stability. How does this affect post-civil-war Syria and a path forward in Gaza?
The split has emerged with the regional influence of Iran, weakened by war and internal unrest, at its lowest point in four decades, and just as a joint UAE- and Saudi-led moderate “axis of cooperation” was ascending to fill the void.
But that alliance’s standing is now in doubt, as the Saudi government in Riyadh engages in an apparent test of wills over who steers the Arab world.
At stake is nascent cooperation over such goals as stabilizing post-civil-war Syria and securing an end to conflict and a path to reconstruction in gaza.
The rift became public on Dec.29 after UAE-backed Yemeni separatists made rapid gains in Hadhramaut governorate, which borders Saudi arabia. Riyadh then publicly criticized the UAE’s role in yemen,more than 10 years after the two nations formed a military coalition to uproot Iran-backed groups from the country.
Under saudi pressure, the separatists disbanded and the UAE withdrew their last troops from Yemen. As of Saturday, Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces had recaptured lost territory.
Contrasting Paths to Stability: A Deep Dive
The escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE are rooted in fundamentally different strategies for achieving regional stability. Saudi Arabia,historically,has favored a top-down approach,prioritizing strong,sovereign nation-states.This vision emphasizes economic growth and fostering regional relationships based on respect for territorial integrity and established political boundaries. Reuters confirms the Saudi preference for governmental control and established order.
Conversely, the UAE has demonstrated a willingness to support non-state actors – militias, secessionist movements – believing this pragmatic approach is necessary to counter Iranian influence and achieve short-term gains. This strategy,however,is viewed by Saudi Arabia as destabilizing,undermining the very foundations of the regional order. Experts like Hesham Alghannam of the Carnegie Middle East Center highlight this critical divergence, stating the Emirati approach ‘undermines the nation-state and feeds chronic instability.’
Ricard Garcia Vilanova/AP/File
Key Areas of Divergence
- Yemen: The initial trigger for the current crisis, with the UAE supporting Southern Transitional Council separatists while Saudi Arabia backs the internationally recognized government.
- Libya: The UAE’s support for Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army, challenging the UN-recognized government in Tripoli, directly conflicts with Saudi Arabia’s preference for inclusive political processes.
- Sudan: Allegations of UAE support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) accused of war crimes, further fuel tensions, as it undercuts efforts towards a stable, civilian-led government.
- Regional Alliances: Growing concerns within saudi Arabia regarding the strengthening relationship between the UAE and Israel, potentially realigning regional power dynamics.
Yet Riyadh has not let up the pressure on Abu Dhabi. Saudi Arabia reportedly is pressing allies to restrain the Emiratis’ influence, its state-run Al Arabiya news channel is indirectly criticizing the UAE, and military officials have publicly accused Emirati military aircraft of operating in Ethiopia, Libya, and Somalia.
“The UAE is choosing the path of deescalation, and it truly seems Saudi Arabia is in the mood for escalation,” says Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, an Emirati political analyst.
“The rift reflects a broader divergence in regional visions and strategic priorities between the two countries,” says Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi political analyst and nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center, writing in an email.
“The Saudi approach rests on a clear and simple premise: Regional stability is built through a capable national state, a dynamic economy, and a network of regional relations grounded in respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity.
“This vision,” he continues, “collides with [the Emirati] approach based on backing militias and secessionist movements across multiple arenas, from Yemen to Libya and sudan – an approach that undermines the nation-state and feeds chronic instability.”
The Broader Regional Implications
This fracture extends beyond bilateral relations, threatening the cohesion of the wider Gulf bloc comprising Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. The rift jeopardizes joint efforts to solidify a Gaza ceasefire, stabilize post-conflict Syria, and bolster Lebanon’s government against Iranian-backed Hezbollah. The Conversation underscores that this conflict isn’t isolated; it signals a deeper, long-simmering disagreement over the future of the Middle East.
Further complicating the situation are reports of airspace restrictions imposed by Egypt and saudi Arabia on emirati military flights headed for Libya, severing a crucial supply line to General haftar. The UAE has consistently maintained a stance of prioritizing regional stability,responding to criticism with a commitment to “dialogue,de-escalation,and internationally supported processes.” However, the actions speak louder than words, evidenced by continued involvement in regional conflicts and the forging of closer ties with Israel.
The Role of Iran and the Shadow of the Abraham Accords
The dynamic is inextricably linked to the evolving regional position of Iran. With Iran’s influence somewhat diminished by internal unrest and ongoing conflicts, the power vacuum has created an opening for both Saudi Arabia and the UAE to assert leadership. The UAE’s increasing alignment with Israel, formalized through the Abraham Accords, is viewed by Saudi Arabia as a intentional attempt to reshape the regional landscape and consolidate influence. Saudi authorities reportedly worry that this partnership could undermine efforts towards a more unified Arab front.
As for Saudi-UAE cooperation, observers say the two will work together – at a distance.
“Saudi Arabia and the UAE can continue to work together as a regional diplomatic bloc, but no longer on the basis of the comprehensive partnership that characterized earlier phases,” writes Dr. Alghannam. “Instead, cooperation will be on clearly defined and limited areas of shared interest,” such as Red Sea maritime corridors, conflict resolution diplomacy, and energy security.
joint ally Washington could bring the two back together, though several Arab observers and a Western diplomat expressed doubt the trump administration has the bandwidth to mediate between its Gulf partners.
“The UAE and Saudi Arabia agree on more central issues than they disagree,” says the Arab diplomat, categorizing the spat as a “separation, not a divorce.”
What might keep Saudi Arabia and the UAE from a wider rift might not be allies or priorities, but the weakening of rival Iran.
“There is a mutual understanding that if the two countries fall to far apart, the axis of cooperation will be no more and the current vacuum in the Middle East could be filled by Turkey, Israel, or chaos,” says the diplomat, “and the opportunity of the post-Iran Middle East will be lost.”
