Abu Dhabi presents itself as neutral, but it’s taking step after step towards becoming a party in the conflict
After February 28, 2026, relations between the United Arab Emirates and Iran entered a new phase of escalation, one in which the old formula of cautious pragmatism effectively stopped working.
Formally, Abu Dhabi declared its neutrality in the war which the US and Israel launched against Iran, and emphasized that it was not providing its territory, airspace, or its waters for strikes against Iran. However, the course of the war quickly showed that Tehran no longer believed such statements. The UAE remains a key US partner in the Persian Gulf, a participant in the Abraham Accords with Israel, and an important financial and logistical hub within the Western infrastructure in the region. For that reason, in Iran’s perception, the Emirates increasingly look like a participant in an anti-Iranian coalition.
The central symbol of the dispute remains the issue of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb, the three islands located near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz. Iran established control over them in 1971, shortly before the creation of the UAE. The Emirates have since regarded the islands as occupied territory and have demanded that the dispute be resolved through negotiations or international arbitration. For Iran, the matter is closed, since Tehran considers the islands part of its own territory. For the UAE, it is an unhealed wound from the birth of the federation and a constant reminder of its strategic vulnerability before a larger neighbor. Today’s discussions about a possible military scenario around the islands are perceived as a direct return to the most painful issue in Emirati-Iranian relations.
A veneer of neutrality
Before the current war, Abu Dhabi tried to be on good terms with everyone. It needed to preserve trade with Iran, ensure security through the US, develop technological and defense cooperation with Israel, and, in its public rhetoric, avoid direct involvement in the conflict. But after the US and Israel attacked Iran, that balance began to collapse. Media reports appeared about secret contacts between Israeli officials and the UAE leadership at the height of the war. CBS News reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made a secret visit to the UAE and met with the country’s president, Mohammed bin Zayed.
According to the channel, the meeting took place in late March, after the current military escalation had already begun. The Israeli side treated the visit as a fact, while the UAE publicly denied the reports. That discrepancy itself became an important political episode, damaging the image of Emirati neutrality and giving Iran another argument for accusing Abu Dhabi of hidden coordination with West Jerusalem.
Even more revealing were reports about visits by Mossad chief David Barnea to the UAE. According to The Wall Street Journal, later cited by Israeli and regional media, Barnea visited the Emirates at least twice during the war in order to coordinate action on the Iranian front. The Jerusalem Post wrote that these visits took place during the operation against Iran and also reported a visit by Shin Bet chief David Zini. These reports, like all wartime back-channel diplomacy, require cautious treatment, since they are based on sources and do not reveal the full picture of the talks. Yet their political significance is clear. If, against the backdrop of declared neutrality, not only Israeli politicians but also Israeli intelligence chiefs are traveling to the UAE, then for Iran, this becomes yet another argument that Abu Dhabi is effectively integrated into a system of Israeli-American coordination against Tehran. For the Emirates themselves, such contacts may look like an element of defensive coordination and intelligence-sharing, but in wartime that distinction almost ceases to function. In Iran’s eyes, a visit by the head of Mossad cannot be a neutral episode, especially when it takes place alongside strikes on Iranian territory, deliveries of air-defense systems, and intensified US pressure on the Gulf states.
Israeli military assistance
Axios, citing Israeli and American officials, reported that Israel had sent the UAE an Iron Dome air defense system and military personnel to operate it – later confirmed by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. For the UAE, this cooperation can be explained as a defensive necessity, since the country found itself under the threat of missile and drone strikes. For Iran, however, the logic looks different. Tehran perceives this as the integration of the UAE into Israel’s military infrastructure in the Gulf.
Officially, Abu Dhabi can argue that the matter concerns only the protection of civilian infrastructure. But war erases the boundary between defense and participation. Every air-defense system, every group of foreign military specialists, every exchange of intelligence, and every closed meeting with Israeli leaders can be seen as part of a single front. It shows that UAE-Israel ties after the Abraham Accords are no longer limited to diplomacy, trade, and technology. Under wartime conditions, those ties acquire direct military-strategic significance.
American presence
Iranian representatives claimed that the CIA and US military structures were operating from UAE territory or using Emirati infrastructure in operations against Iran. It’s difficult to verify the truth of these statements, but in wartime the statements themselves become part of the conflict. Tehran uses them to justify pressure on the UAE and to portray it as a platform for US and Israeli activity. Abu Dhabi, for its part, has found itself in a difficult position. If it openly acknowledges deep coordination with Washington and West Jerusalem, it becomes a direct target for Iranian retaliation. If it denies everything while remaining part of the US security system and receiving defense assistance from Israel, its neutrality looks increasingly unconvincing.
The financial factor
For decades, Dubai has remained one of the most important external hubs for Iranian business, including trading companies, exchange houses, intermediary structures, and payment channels through which Tehran partially circumvented sanctions. Amid the war, unconfirmed reports appeared that the UAE, either shortly before the current escalation or already during the conflict, had restricted Iranian financial channels, frozen Iran-linked assets, or participated in closed arrangements involving the movement of billions of dollars. The most reliable open-source evidence points to a broader pattern of intensified pressure. The US imposed new sanctions on the Iranian exchange house Amin Exchange and a network of related entities, including companies in the UAE, Turkey, China, and Hong Kong, which Washington said helped Iranian banks conduct transactions in ways that circumvented restrictions.
For Iran, this is yet another front in the war. Even if the UAE explains tighter financial controls as a requirement of the sanctions regime and as a way to protect its own banking system, the political timing turns such steps into part of the pressure on Tehran. In peacetime, Abu Dhabi could play the role of an intermediary between the reality of sanctions and the realities of living next to Iran. In wartime, that gray zone quickly becomes a field of accusations. If the Emirates close financial channels, Iran sees it as participation in economic warfare. If they leave the channels open, the US increases pressure on Abu Dhabi and demands greater discipline in sanctions enforcement.
Push to action
The situation was further complicated by allegations that US officials were encouraging the Emirates to become more actively involved in the campaign and to consider the possibility of seizing one of the Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf. True or not, the very fact that such reports appeared shows that the island dispute may once again be used not only as a historical Emirati grievance, but also as an instrument in the US and Israeli military strategy against Iran.
This is where the UAE may find itself under pressure from both sides. On the one hand, the US and Israel badly need regional actors to join their campaign against Iran. Without the participation of Gulf states, the war remains an external operation by Washington and West Jerusalem that causes discomfort even among Arab states that fear Iran. If regional actors take part in the pressure on Tehran, however, it creates the appearance of a broader coalition and reduces the political cost for the US and Israel. The UAE specifically has a modern military, ports, intelligence infrastructure, financial leverage, ties with Israel, and its own territorial dispute with Iran, making it especially important for this strategy.
On the other hand, Iran views any deepening of Emirati involvement as grounds for retaliation. Strikes on infrastructure, threats to shipping, accusations that Emirati territory is being used, drone attacks, and pressure through allied networks in the region show that Tehran is prepared to transfer the cost of war onto its neighbors if it considers them part of a hostile framework. The UAE said drones had struck near the Barakah nuclear power plant and pointed to their origin from Iraqi territory, immediately linking the incident to the wider network of pro-Iranian forces in the region. For the Emirates, this is an extremely dangerous situation. Their cities, ports, airports, energy infrastructure, financial system, and reputation as a safe haven all depend on stability. Even limited involvement in the war could strike at the very foundation of the Emirati development model.
A slippery slope
As a result, UAE neutrality is becoming an increasingly unstable construct. Abu Dhabi does not want to enter the war openly, yet it also cannot fully distance itself from the US and Israel, because those ties provide missile defense, military support, and strategic insurance against Iran. This duality makes the UAE from a potential arbiter of the crisis into one of its most vulnerable participants.
The main danger for Abu Dhabi is that it could be dragged into the conflict not by one abrupt decision, but through a series of gradual steps. Financial discipline against Iranian networks, then deeper US-Israeli defense coordination, then visits and closed consultations with Israeli officials, then participation in securing the Strait of Hormuz, then discussion of the disputed islands as a possible lever of pressure against Iran. Each individual step can be presented as defensive, technical, or forced. But taken together, they may lead to a situation in which the UAE is no longer merely near the war, but inside it.
