Why Is the UAE Positioning Itself as a Hub for International Diplomacy?

19
0

By Saahil Menon

Having accepted the Armenia-Azerbaijan dossier after failed attempts at hosting ongoing Russo-Ukrainian peace discussions or indirect nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States, Abu Dhabi’s credentials as an honest broker remain highly questionable.

On July 2, 2025, the London-based online news outlet Middle East Eye reported that the heads of state of arch-foes Armenia and Azerbaijan were set to meet each other imminently in Dubai for normalization talks. Sure enough, this came to pass a mere eight days later — albeit under the aegis of Abu Dhabi’s ruling elite as opposed to the far less politically active House of Maktoum. Yet unlike previous encounters in Moscow, Brussels and Washington, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azeri President Ilham Aliyev were left to their own devices this time around for a five-hour long tête-à-tête with no third-party oversight or involvement. It is not clear why the agenda-driven Emirati leadership agreed to a strictly bilateral format that would deny them bragging rights had a major breakthrough been achieved on their soil.

Nonetheless, the fact that pro-Aliyev think tanks like the Topchubashov Center and the Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) appeared exceedingly bullish on the choice of venue goes to show how Abu Dhabi is anything but the impartial and well-meaning arbiter it masquerades as. The Azeri dictator, for his part, is something of an equal opportunity provocateur who managed to make as much an enemy of the West in recent years as he has key Global South players including Russia, India and Iran. Thanks to its so-called “zero problems” foreign policy doctrine and relative proximity to the South Caucasus, the UAE was deemed a mutually palatable destination for a summit of such magnitude to take place. That said, there is no denying the Trump administration’s outsized role in handing the Emirati government this much-needed PR win against the backdrop of burgeoning intra-GCC competition.

Upon assuming his second term in office, U.S President Donald Trump established an unwritten quid pro quo with the Persian Gulf monarchies whereby they would get to share the spoils of restoring world peace in return for ploughing hundreds of billions — if not trillions —of dollars into the American economy. From the standpoint of an image-conscious UAE, indulging in high-stakes diplomacy to gloss over its less than stellar human rights record and military misadventures across the MENA region makes eminently good sense — no matter the asking price. During an official visit to the White House four months ago, Emirati National Security Advisor Tahnoon Bin Zayed Al Nahyan announced plans to invest $1.4 trillion in the United States over the next decade while an additional $200 billion worth of commercial deals were clinched when Trump frequented the UAE last May.

With Saudi Arabia likewise proposing a $600 billion capital injection and Qatar playing into Trump’s vanity by gifting him a $400 million luxury jet on top the $500 billion its sovereign wealth fund had allocated to the U.S market, the GCC’s most influential member states have found themselves in a bidding war of sorts for preferential treatment from Uncle Sam. Admittedly, these lofty financial commitments did earn Trump’s Middle Eastern patrons a seat at negotiating tables they would otherwise have probably never been a part of – whether it be the three rounds of Russia-Ukraine ceasefire talks held in Riyadh and Jeddah at Washington’s behest or the peace declaration Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) signed last week in Doha following three months of Qatari-mediated deliberations.

Get the Mirror in your inbox:

Despite initiating untold Russo-Ukrainian prisoner exchanges and a senior presidential aide personally delivering Trump’s letter to the Iranian supreme leader in mid-March as a goodwill gesture, the UAE’s diplomatic intervention was sought by neither Moscow and Kyiv throughout the course of Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” nor Tehran and Tel Aviv at the height of their 12-day conflagration this summer. Both rivalries expose the limits of Abu Dhabi’s international relations double-dealing and how resultant conflicts of interest preclude it from serving as a universally trusted go-between. Being a massive beneficiary of Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there is no genuine desire on the sheikhdom’s part to bring about an end to the biggest flare-up in Europe since World War II or facilitate a Moscow-Washington détente that would inevitably pave the way for Western sanctions relief.

The Kremlin’s post-war isolation has seen Russian oligarchs ejected from Euro-Atlantic capitals purchase expensive real estate, dock their yachts and set up shell companies galore in business-friendly Dubai — not to mention worldly, middle-class Muscovites leveraging the glitzy city-state’s extensive flight network to skirt around an EU-wide airspace ban imposed on Russian carriers and access mainland Europe or head even further afield. A similar argument holds vis-à-vis Iran and in particular, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) whose surrogates and frontmen have come to rely almost exclusively on Dubai as their de facto back door to the West amid Trump’s continued “maximum pressure campaign.”

Notwithstanding an existing territorial dispute over three Iranian-administered Persian Gulf islands — Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb — the UAE is the Islamic Republic’s second largest trading partner after China, with Emirati exports to Iran increasing nearly four-fold from $6 billion to $22 billion since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was scrapped. Needless to say, the Emiratis are more than happy to throw Iran’s beleaguered clerical establishment an economic lifeline and in effect, underwrite their own occupation for the sake of insulating themselves from the kind of kinetic action Qatar faced shortly after the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility was stuck by U.S-made “bunker buster” bombs.

Whereas Abu Dhabi’s cozy ties with Moscow have gone largely unnoticed in Western corridors of power to the extent that it was removed from the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF’s) grey list in February 2024 and the EU’s “dirty money blacklist” last month, playing footsie with an equally radioactive Iran may be a bridge too far. Helping Yerevan and Baku reach an enduring settlement after nearly forty years of hostility is a golden opportunity for the oil-rich federation to claw its way back into the United States’ good graces given its full-fledged BRICS membership coupled with the sheer number of Emirati shipping firms and UAE-domiciled individuals sanctioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) over their links to Iran’s illicit shadow fleet network.

Applying the finishing touches to what is widely considered a done deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan – barring one or two sticking points – will also remind the international community of Little Sparta’s strategic relevance at a time when Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MbS) is convinced that his Vision 2030 modernization push can only be realized by cutting the Kingdom’s “inconvenient” neighbours down to size and leaving them with no real raison d’être. This dangerous zero-sum mentality could see the 39-year-old killer prince, who has a history of shafting those close to him, turn his back on once-mentors UAE President Mohamad Bin Zayed Al Nahyan (MbZ) and Dubai ruler Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum (MbR) if push comes to shove. With PIF-backed giga-projects like NEOM and Qiddiya afflicted by construction delays, budget overruns and mass layoffs, a vindictive MbS may simply find it more expedient to vent his frustration at the UAE instead of assessing what went wrong.

However keen the Emiratis may be to carve out a niche for themselves as indispensable bridge-builders, there is a very real risk of optics and prestige taking precedence over actually getting a sustainable Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty across the finish line. Worse still, Armenia should harbor no illusions about the UAE being a good faith interlocutor and not having a dog in this fight. As an opaque, family-run petrostate that deprives its citizens of the most fundamental civil liberties, subjects women to a patriarchal guardianship system and ranks 164th out of 180 countries in the latest press freedom index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Abu Dhabi represents the complete antithesis of the open, meritocratic and self-correcting society Yerevan happens to be.

It is no secret that the power-hungry Bani Fatima brothers regard Eastern Europe and the wider post-Soviet space as a testing ground for their “authoritarian stability” blueprint. The lavish infrastructure projects Eagle Hills – an Abu-Dhabi-headquartered property developer with links to the Al-Nahyan royals – has undertaken in the likes of Hungary, Serbia, Albania and Georgia serve as cases in point of the Emiratis propping up like-minded, hybrid regimes through “vulture capitalism”. Azerbaijan’s dynastic and brutally repressive governance model all but mirrors that of the UAE, as does the Caspian nation’s penchant for greenwashing and bandying about its pseudo-tolerance of religion minorities to curry favor with the West.

Beyond Ilham Aliyev’s ideological alignment with fellow genocidaire strongman MbZ, Baku has been tipped as a frontrunner to join the decaying Abraham Accords and in doing so, breathe new life into the “circle of peace” Abu Dhabi is experiencing buyer’s remorse over rushing headlong into. Armenia, on the other hand, recognized the State of Palestine in June 2024 as a knee-jerk reaction to Israel’s robust defense and intelligence-sharing partnership with Azerbaijan. By virtue of the latter’s victory in the 44-day Second Karabakh War, Aliyev has refused to budge on his maximalist demands for a lasting resolution — chief among which is the opening of the “Zangezur Corridor” that would connect Azerbaijan proper to its Nakhichevan exclave.

Mindful of Iran’s vehement opposition to the “redrawing of borders” in the South Caucasus, there is every reason to believe the UAE, out of spite and hubris towards the anti-monarcy Iranian mullahs, will do weaponize its unprecedented investments in Armenia and coerce Pashinyan into total submission on Azerbaijan’s behalf. Ultimately, mediating a conflict that has no security implications for the UAE or the Arabian Peninsula writ large amounts to little more than a “reputation-laundering” exercise aimed at sweeping the Emirati royals’ copious ill deeds under the rug — from kidnapping and disappearing their estranged daughters to foisting the world’s worst humanitarian crises upon Yemen and Sudan. Freedom-loving Armenia would be wise to see through Abu Dhabi’s nefarious motives behind playacting peacemaker and temper its expectations accordingly.

(Saahil Menon is a Dubai-based freelance writer specializing in the former Soviet Union.)

Get the Mirror-Spectator Weekly in your inbox: