Wars at arm’s length: How the UAE became a shadowy power and betrayed Sheikh Zayed’s legacy

Until his death on 2 November 2004, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan guided the UAE with a policy of neutrality, cautious diplomacy, and humanitarian aid. Known as an Arab nationalist, he prioritised pan-Arab unity and support for Palestine. After the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, he  declared, “Arab oil is not dearer than Arab blood,” endorsing the UAE’s role in the oil embargo. Under his leadership, the UAE avoided regional conflicts and was viewed as a quiet stabilising force in the Arab world.

After Sheikh Zayed’s death in 2004, the UAE’s stance shifted dramatically. Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed’s (MbZ) assertive leadership, it became an interventionist power, using wealth, arms, and proxies to destabilise the region—spreading conflict and war wherever it sought influence, in direct contradiction to the Arab unity principles Sheikh Zayed once upheld.

The most dramatic shift in the UAE’s foreign policy came in 2011, when the country’s air force joined the NATO-led bombing campaign against Libya. Citing the protection of civilians from the Gaddafi regime’s violent crackdown, the UAE joined Western powers in a military intervention that ultimately resulted in the fall — and violent death — of Libya’s long-time leader, Muammar Gaddafi.

Abu Dhabi played an active role, deploying F-16 and Mirage 2000 fighter jets from NATO bases in Italy to conduct airstrikes over Libyan territory. It was a watershed moment: for the first time in its history, the UAE participated in a war against a fellow Arab state — and not in response to clear-cut aggression, as had been the case with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, but under far more ambiguous justifications. Many observers familiar with Sheikh Zayed’s pan-Arabist vision found the move deeply unsettling. They argued that, had he been alive, Sheikh Zayed — who in the 1970s travelled to Libya for medical treatment and maintained warm relations with Gaddafi despite policy differences — would have firmly rejected any military assault on an Arab capital, especially one carried out under the command of Western powers.

After the end of the first Libyan civil war in late 2011, the UAE continued to finance and arm some none state actors that fragmented Libya’s fragile political landscape, actively undermining efforts to build a stable and unified government—a crisis that remains unresolved today. Starting in 2014, Abu Dhabi backed General Khalifa Haftar as its main proxy in Libya, providing him with significant financial aid, weapons, and advanced military equipment, most notably armed drones—used for the first time in Libya. These drones played a devastating role during Haftar’s April 2019 offensive to capture Tripoli. Despite early gains, Haftar’s campaign ultimately collapsed by June 2020, following increased Turkish military support for the internationally recognised Government of National Accord. This assistance, which included air power and Syrian mercenaries, helped repel Haftar’s forces and forced him to retreat over 500 kilometres to Sirte on the coast, far from the capital’s outskirts.

While continuing to back General Khalifa Haftar in Libya, Abu Dhabi was simultaneously involved in the Saudi-led, US-backed military coalition in Yemen from 2015, aiming to eradicate the Houthi movement. The UAE played a prominent role, deploying ground forces and conducting airstrikes alongside Saudi Arabia. Yet, the coalition has failed to achieve its goals, with the Houthis maintaining control over large swaths of Yemen. Moreover, the Houthis have demonstrated their capability to strike deep into the Gulf region, carrying out major attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure—including the devastating 2019 drone and missile assault on Abqaiq and Khurais—and even targeting Riyadh itself. In January 2022, the Houthis launched a drone and missile attacks on Abu Dhabi, causing casualties and damage on UAE soil. When Israel launched its genocidal assault on Gaza, the Houthis fired missiles and drones deep inside Israel—a development that might have resonated differently had Sheikh Zayed still been alive to witness it. The UAE officially withdrew most of its troops from Yemen in mid-2019 but continues to support allied local forces, maintaining its influence in the conflict through proxies.

Nowadays, Abu Dhabi is backing another proxy in Sudan: the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a powerful paramilitary group that has been engaged in a war with the Sudanese Armed Forces. Since at least 2021, the RSF has benefited from substantial funding, arms including drones, and mercenaries provided by the UAE, enabling it to challenge the country’s fragile transition to civilian rule. Meanwhile, Abu Dhabi has faced accusations from Algeria of meddling in its internal affairs, particularly regarding alleged support for opposition groups and attempts to influence regional politics—claims that have significantly strained relations between the two countries. Similarly, the UAE’s deep involvement in Yemen, beyond the formal Saudi-led coalition, has included backing local militias and shaping the conflict’s dynamics to serve its strategic interests.

However, the greatest shift—and perhaps the deepest affront to the legacy of the UAE’s founding father—came in September 2020, when Abu Dhabi unexpectedly announced its accession to the Abraham Accords, normalising relations with Israel. For many observers, this move represented a stark reversal and repudiation of the Arab and Islamic principles that Sheikh Zayed had long championed and enshrined as the foundation of Emirati foreign policy. The decision unsettled traditional Arab solidarity—including within the Emirates themselves—with the Palestinians and reshaped the region for the benefit of Israel in ways Sheikh Zayed likely would have found deeply troubling. When Israel launched its modern-day Holocaust in Gaza, Abu Dhabi failed to leverage its ties with Tel Aviv to intervene meaningfully. Instead, it sought to whitewash its image by sending aid and accepting a handful of Palestinian children, victims of Israeli starvation and bombing, for medical treatment. Yet, as a state that had normalised relations, the UAE was expected to take a stronger stance—such as withdrawing its ambassador from Israel and freezing all commercial and trade ties with the apartheid regime—while Israel continued its slaughter of Palestinian women and children.

The transformation of the UAE from a cautious, pan-Arabist state under Sheikh Zayed into a shadowy regional power wielding drones, proxies, and covert influence marks a profound departure from its founding principles. As Abu Dhabi pursues its ambitions through wars fought at arm’s length, it undermines not only regional stability but also its own international standing. The legacy of Sheikh Zayed—a vision rooted in Arab unity, diplomacy, and restraint—stands in stark contrast to today’s Emirati foreign policy, which too often fans the flames of conflict rather than quelling them. Unless the UAE reassesses its approach, the costs of this militarised assertiveness will continue to reverberate across the Middle East and beyond, leaving behind fractured societies and shattered hopes for lasting peace.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.