Follow us on social

google cta
5769001

A lotta nerve: UAE threatens to back out of F-35 deal

Abu Dhabi is horse trading because it knows Washington and Lockheed Martin are desperate for the sale.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

In some places they call this, “a lotta nerve.” According to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, UAE leaders are threatening to back out of a $25 billion arms deal because they don’t like the security requirements that the United States have placed on the transfer.

Good, so kill the deal.

As you’ll remember, the Trump administration agreed to sell F-35 fighter jets to the Emiratis in exchange for their signature on a new normalization agreement with Israel, otherwise known as the Abraham Accords. From there, Tel Aviv raised a ruckus about the sale hurting their qualitative military edge in the Middle East so they bargained for more goodies for themselves. Then they supported the deal.

In the meantime, members of Congress tried to kill the deal, considering that the UAE and their pals in Riyadh (also the potential recipient of billions of dollars in new American weapons), had been responsible for the devastating war in Yemen, in addition to oppressing their people, and in the case of the Emirates, violating UN arms embargoes. Unfortunately, their effort went nowhere. Biden, for all of his talk about holding Middle East despots accountable, has signaled that the UAE deal will proceed, after initially teasing opponents with a sense that he might do the right thing and thwart it.

In an ironic twist, however, it looks like Washington’s client states aren’t through with trying to squeeze more juice from this lemon. Reports indicate that on the eve of a high-level visit to the Pentagon, UAE leaders say they want to kill the F-35 transfer because the Americans have put too many onerous restrictions on the technology, fearing Chinese espionage:

The letter communicating the threat was written by a relatively junior official in the government, suggesting the overture was a negotiating tactic heading into the meeting, U.S. officials said. Other officials said that while the U.S. has legitimate security concerns, there was a scramble to salvage the sale of weapons to a Gulf partner.

Put aside for a moment that security concerns over Chinese intellectual property theft when it comes to the U.S. military doesn’t come out of nowhere. Part of Edward Snowden’s trove of hacked Pentagon documents showed that Chinese hackers had stolen F-35 blueprints years ago.

The real gall on display here is that the UAE is horse trading with the U.S. because it knows that Washington and Lockheed Martin are desperate for the sale. The idea that the U.S. was doing them a favor was an illusion — apparently it was the other way around. Meanwhile, the Emirates have just inked a deal for 80 of France’s fighter jets. The hope that there will ever be any peace on this part of the planet seems so far-fetched now, as major powers continue to put profits and shortsighted geopolitical interests before anything else.

We would rather see this deal killed and Lockheed have to go back to its shareholders empty handed. Likely it will go through. But the joke may be on Abu Dhabi after all. If they think the F-35’s security components are onerous, just wait until they find out what the maintenance will cost them. If the Pentagon caves, they will soon find out. It's a trillion dollar dog. Good luck.


Two F-35 Lightning II’s bank after receiving fuel over the Midwest Sept. 19, 2019. The two aircraft were in route to the 158th Fighter Wing out of the Vermont Air National Guard Base, South Burlington, Vt., the first Air National Guard unit to receive the aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Ben Mota)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.