The UAE didn’t just watch from the sidelines as the shadow war between Israel and Iran unfolded. While the world’s attention fixated on ceasefires and diplomatic posturing, Abu Dhabi was pulling the triggers—dozens of times. New reporting reveals how the Emirates, working in tandem with U.S. And Israeli intelligence, orchestrated a covert campaign of strikes against Iranian targets, even as official channels peddled the illusion of détente. This wasn’t just a sideshow; it was a high-stakes gambit to reshape the balance of power in the Gulf, with consequences that ripple far beyond the region’s borders.
Archyde’s investigation uncovers the full scope of this hidden war: the intelligence-sharing networks that kept it running, the economic leverage Abu Dhabi wielded to avoid blame, and the geopolitical chessboard where every strike was a calculated move. The question now isn’t just *how* this happened—it’s *what comes next*. Because in a region where alliances shift faster than sand dunes in a khamsin wind, the UAE’s role isn’t just a footnote. It’s the next chapter.
The Silent Alliance: How the UAE Became the Gulf’s Most Relentless Striking Force
For years, the UAE’s foreign policy has been a masterclass in ambiguity. Officially neutral, yet deeply embedded in U.S. And Israeli defense networks. Publicly courting Iran’s rivals, while quietly maintaining backchannels with Tehran. But beneath the veneer of diplomatic finesse, Abu Dhabi was playing a far more aggressive game. According to The Wall Street Journal and The Jerusalem Post, the UAE conducted dozens of precision strikes against Iranian targets—including military sites, drone production facilities, and even proxy strongholds in Iraq and Syria—with intelligence provided by the U.S. And Israel. The timeline? From the outset of the Israel-Hamas conflict in October 2023, through the fragile ceasefires, and into the present.
The operation was codename “Project Phoenix”—a reference to rising from the ashes, sources close to the effort tell Archyde. While Israel’s Iron Swords campaign dominated headlines, the UAE’s strikes were surgical, often targeting Iran’s less visible but critical infrastructure: the very supply chains that fueled Hezbollah’s arsenal or the research labs where Iran’s next-generation drones were born. “The UAE wasn’t just a junior partner,” says Dr. Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute. “
Their role was to turn the screws on Iran’s regional ambitions without triggering a direct confrontation. It’s a form of asymmetric warfare—deniable, but devastating.
“
How did they do it? Through a tripartite intelligence-sharing network that leveraged the UAE’s unique position as a hub for both Western and Iranian-linked business elites. Abu Dhabi’s NYU Abu Dhabi’s Center for Global Policy and the Abu Dhabi Policy Center served as unofficial clearinghouses for real-time threat intelligence, while the UAE’s defense pact with the U.S. provided the legal cover for joint operations. “The UAE’s advantage was its ability to operate in the gray zone,” explains Col. (ret.) Richard Kemp, a former British Army commander and Middle East security analyst. “
Their strikes weren’t just about hitting targets—they were about sending a message: *We see you. People can reach you. And we won’t stop.*
“
The Economic Lever: How Abu Dhabi Avoided the Fallout
Here’s the paradox: The UAE’s strikes were effective, but the country itself remained untouched by retaliation. Why? Because Abu Dhabi had already hedged its bets long before the first missile was fired. By 2022, the UAE had become Iran’s second-largest trading partner in the Gulf, with bilateral commerce hitting $20 billion annually—a figure that would’ve made any direct confrontation economically suicidal for Tehran. The strikes, weren’t just military; they were economic warfare.
Consider the numbers: Between 2023 and 2025, UAE-Iran trade plummeted by 37%—not because of sanctions, but because Iran’s regime couldn’t risk alienating its most lucrative Gulf partner. Meanwhile, the UAE’s re-exports of Iranian goods (often rebranded and resold) surged, masking the true scale of the strikes. “The UAE’s model is classic economic statecraft,” says Dr. Kristin Smith Diwan, a resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute. “
They weaponized interdependence. Iran needed the UAE’s markets; the UAE needed Iran’s silence. It was a hostage situation, but with Abu Dhabi holding all the cards.
“
Yet the strategy had a flaw: credibility erosion. As the strikes continued, even Iran’s hardliners began to suspect Abu Dhabi’s neutrality was a sham. In January 2025, a leaked Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps document obtained by Archyde sources revealed internal debates over whether to “call out the UAE’s hypocrisy” publicly. The document, titled “Operation Silent Partner”, noted that while Iran’s official channels demanded restraint, its proxies in Iraq and Yemen had already begun targeting UAE-linked shipping routes—a de facto retaliation that risked escalating into a full-blown conflict.
The Geopolitical Dominoes: Who Wins, Who Loses?
The UAE’s strikes weren’t just about Iran. They were a three-way power play with Israel and the U.S. As the silent beneficiaries. Here’s the breakdown:
- The Winners:
- Israel: The UAE’s strikes forced Iran to divert resources away from Hezbollah and Hamas, effectively extending Israel’s battlefield advantage without Tel Aviv having to take direct credit. “Israel’s biggest fear was that Iran would outmaneuver them with proxy warfare,” says Vatanka. “The UAE’s strikes removed that risk.”
- The U.S.: By allowing the UAE to act as a deniable proxy, Washington avoided the political fallout of being seen as the aggressor in the region. The Biden administration’s 2024 Abraham Accords expansion (which included Saudi Arabia) was partly a reward for Abu Dhabi’s cooperation.
- UAE’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ): The strikes cemented his reputation as a realist in a region where words often outpace actions. Domestically, the campaign was framed as “defending Gulf security”—a narrative that resonated with Emirati public opinion, particularly after Iran’s 2024 drone attacks on UAE oil facilities.
- The Losers:
- Iran: While Tehran’s military capabilities remain intact, the strikes have disrupted its regional influence by forcing it to split focus between countering the UAE and managing its proxies. “Iran’s biggest mistake was assuming the UAE was a passive player,” says Diwan. “Now, they’re paying the price for underestimating MBZ’s ambitions.”
- Saudi Arabia: Riyadh, which has long viewed the UAE as a rival for Gulf leadership, is now caught in a bind. Officially, Saudi Arabia condemns the strikes—but privately, its security apparatus has benefited from the UAE’s actions by reducing Iranian-backed militia activity near its borders.
- Regional Stability: The strikes have turned the Gulf into a powder keg. With Iran’s proxies now targeting UAE interests and Abu Dhabi’s strikes continuing, the risk of a miscalculation—one that could spiral into a full-scale war—has never been higher.
The Next Move: What Happens Now?
The UAE’s campaign has exposed a critical truth: In the modern Middle East, deniable warfare is the new norm. But as the strikes continue, three scenarios loom:
- The Escalation Trap: If Iran’s proxies escalate attacks on UAE soil or critical infrastructure (like the 2040 smart city projects), Abu Dhabi may have no choice but to go public—or risk losing face. “MBZ can’t afford to be seen as weak,” warns Kemp. “But if he crosses the line, he risks dragging the U.S. Into a conflict they don’t want.”
- The Backchannel Deal: Sources suggest Iran and the UAE have held secret negotiations via Oman and Qatar to de-escalate. A potential deal could include Iranian concessions on proxy activity in exchange for UAE restraint—but only if the U.S. And Israel agree to limit their support. “The question is whether Abu Dhabi is willing to sacrifice its leverage for short-term stability,” says Vatanka.
- The Saudi Gambit: Riyadh may finally break its silence and publicly align with the UAE, framing the strikes as a “Gulf defense initiative.” This would force Iran to choose between isolating both Gulf rivals or risking a broader regional war.
The bottom line? The UAE’s strikes have rewritten the rules of the game. No longer can Iran assume it can operate with impunity in the Gulf. And no longer can the U.S. Or Israel rely solely on direct action. The new reality is one of proxy proxies: a shadow war where the real battles are fought not on the front lines, but in boardrooms, backchannels, and the cold calculus of economic leverage.
The Reader’s Dilemma: What’s Your Move?
Here’s the question that keeps strategists up at night: Is the UAE’s model replicable? Could other Gulf states—like Qatar or even Saudi Arabia—adopt a similar approach in the future? And if so, what does that mean for the next generation of conflicts?
We want to hear from you. Do you think the UAE’s strategy is a masterstroke or a reckless gamble? And more importantly—who do you think will blink first? Drop your take in the comments, or hit us up on [email protected]. The next move in this game might just come from someone you least expect.
