Follow us on social

Mbs-mbz-scaled

How the growing UAE-Saudi rivalry could pay off for the United States

Their fierce competition for economic power in the region might actually smooth America's exit from the stage.

Analysis | Middle East

Multiple cracks have recently opened in the Saudi-Emirati relationship. The UAE is resisting efforts by Saudi Arabia and Russia to convince OPEC+ members to continue to restrict oil production. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia will no longer consider goods produced in free zones to be “locally made,” a decision that will subject many Emirati products to tariffs. 

And that’s not all: Saudi Arabia suspended flights to the UAE, citing concerns about the Delta variant of COVID-19, an act reciprocated by the Emirates. In April, Saudi Arabia announced that by 2024, it will cease doing business with any company that does not base its regional headquarters in the kingdom, a policy that will likely force many multinational corporations to relocate from the UAE to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia recently revealed a $133 billion investment to become a regional transportation and logistics hub, a bid to replace Dubai and Abu Dhabi (as well as Doha). The Saudis intend to launch a new airline that will jockey with other Gulf carriers like Etihad, Emirates, and Qatar Airways for international customers.

Taken together, these moves indicate heightened tensions between the two countries, and in particular between their powerful crown princes, MBS of Saudi Arabia and MBZ of Abu Dhabi. Under the previous U.S. administration, the princes had partnered closely with each other and with Trump’s team on issues from the 2017 blockade of Qatar, to the 2020 Abraham Accords. MBZ was described as a mentor for MBS, despite the contrast between the Emirati royal’s clever cultivation of the UAE’s image and the Saudi’s rash and often horrific policy decisions that undermined his desire to rebrand his kingdom. Yet despite their earlier closeness, the rivalry between the two countries is unsurprising: MBS sees Saudi Arabia as the region’s rightful dominant power, and is moving to seize the position of economic, transit, and tourist hub hitherto held by the UAE.

Under the Trump administration, the Saudis and Emiratis coordinated to compel greater U.S. involvement in the region, a reaction to Obama’s effort to negotiate a nuclear treaty with Iran and pivot to Asia. Trump and his team complied, abandoning Obama’s nuclear deal and adopting a stance of maximum pressure that brought the U.S. to the brink of war with Iran. The Biden administration looks to re-enter the nuclear deal, and appears committed to finally shifting U.S. focus away from the Middle East and Afghanistan

The Saudi-Emirati race for economic rewards could bode well for Biden’s goal of reducing U.S. involvement in the region. If Saudi Arabia and the UAE are primarily focused on competing with each other, they will both prefer to foster regional stability in order to encourage investment, potentially curbing impulses to behave aggressively towards each other or their neighbors. 

Saudi Arabia in particular needs to funnel capital towards MBS’ ambitious Vision 2030, through which he promised to diversify the economy, generate greater employment opportunities, and provide general prosperity for Saudis. Yet at present, Saudi Arabia remains bogged down in Yemen, a conflict that threatens to demand even greater resources as the Saudis’ inability to neutralize the Houthis becomes increasingly apparent. Hopefully MBS has learned that wars are frequently more costly and longer lasting than anticipated, and so may exhibit greater restraint in the future. Meanwhile, MBZ is too cunning to try to win a tug-of-war with Saudi Arabia’s larger economy — $700 billion as opposed to $421 billion GDP — so he will need to look for alternative sources of revenue. 

Yet in general, MBS faces the more difficult task: according to the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” survey of regulations in 190 countries, the UAE ranks 16th, while Saudi Arabia ranks 62nd. The Saudi economy must be fully transformed to attract the level of investment necessary to employ its young and growing population. At over 20 million, Saudi citizens significantly outnumber the UAE’s approximately 1 million citizens, (both countries have large populations of expat workers, making the total number of residents higher than that of nationals). GDP per capita in Saudi Arabia is approximately $20K, compared to $43K in the Emirates. With a larger population and less capital per capita, MBS cannot afford to buy his citizens’ quiescence. As the Abraham Accords demonstrated, fears of public opposition do not constrain MBZ, whereas Saudi Arabia ultimately decided not to risk the backlash that would follow normalization with Israel.

The UAE may have felt disappointed by the Saudis’ reluctance to follow their lead on the Abraham Accords, especially since Jared Kushner apparently believed he could deliver the Saudis. MBS owed his close relationship to the Trump team, specifically Jared Kushner, to MBZ’s introduction. Yet ultimately, with a new president in the White House, MBZ may find it more useful to be the sole Gulf power to have normalized with Israel, given the subsequent boost in the eyes of the U.S., as well as subsequent access to advanced surveillance and military technologies. 

In the short term, the rivalry between the UAE and Saudi Arabia could help keep both MBZ and MBS focused on economic concerns. Yet MBS has staked his legitimacy on keeping his promises to the young generation of Saudis educated abroad, a transition that will require him to prioritize economic diversification away from oil. For MBS, therefore, competition with the UAE is likely to appear increasingly important, as Saudi Arabia seeks to replace the UAE’s role as the region’s capital of cosmopolitanism, opportunity, and glamor. In the medium term, if MBS fails to deliver, Saudi Arabia could grow increasingly unstable.

And in the short, medium, and long term, global interests are ill-served by both the UAE and Saudi Arabia continuing to tie their fortunes to the burning of fossil fuels, though to some extent it would seem that Abu Dhabi is acknowledging the changing realities. Despite both countries’ on-going and egregious human rights abuses, the Biden administration should encourage each countries’ efforts to transition away from oil.


UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS
Analysis | Middle East
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.