The Biden administration is reportedly discussing a new agreement with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that would include new U.S. strategic security guarantees for the client government in Abu Dhabi.
If the reports are correct, this would mark another step in the wrong direction for U.S. policy in the Middle East. Coming on the heels of Secretary Blinken’s reported apology to Mohamed bin Zayed for the supposedly slow U.S. response to a Houthi attack on Abu Dhabi in March, a new security agreement with the UAE would be more proof that the administration’s “back to basics” approach to the region amounts to nothing more than catering to client states and making additional unnecessary commitments to them.
While the security agreement in question would seem to fall far short of the formal treaty that the UAE might have preferred, it rewards the UAE with greater U.S. protection despite their government’s destructive regional behavior and their efforts to interfere in our domestic politics. If the U.S. provides security guarantees to the UAE, Biden will be repeating the errors of his predecessors by “reassuring” a bad regional actor at our own country’s expense.
The last few months are a cautionary tale of how regional client states take advantage of the U.S. and extract additional concessions by complaining about Washington’s alleged neglect. The United States already goes out of its way to provide protection to Abu Dhabi, and the Biden administration has literally rushed jets and ships to guard against further Houthi attacks. This was apparently not quick enough, and is reportedly why their representative abstained on the Security Council resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine.
Mohamed bin Zayed also refused to take the president’s calls and snubbed the U.S. Centcom commander when he visited. The Biden administration’s response to this obstinacy has been to play the sycophant, as if the UAE were the senior partner in the relationship and our government needed their approval. This embarrassing display will likely continue as the president is expected to take part in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit later this month in Riyadh.
Advocates of a closer relationship with the UAE have carried out a pressure campaign against the administration over the last few months to get the U.S. to mend fences with Abu Dhabi, and the administration has hastened to oblige. Even though the U.S. is under no obligation to do anything for the UAE, the assumption among its supporters is that any rift in the relationship is Washington’s fault and that it is incumbent on our government to repair it.
Unfortunately, far too many policymakers in our government share this view and act accordingly. If U.S. and UAE interests diverge, as they often do these days, it is not our government’s responsibility to subordinate American interests to fill in the gap.
Extending security guarantees to the UAE might make some sort of sense if the UAE had proven itself to be a useful and constructive partner in recent years, but the record shows just the opposite. Whether it has been backing its preferred warlord in Libya, carving out a sphere of influence in Yemen, handing out U.S.-made weapons to its proxies in violation of their agreements, or opposing the nuclear deal with Iran, the UAE has been working against U.S. interests and destabilizing other countries.
Given this record, Gregg Carlstrom recently marveled that it was “remarkable that the UAE can spend a decade doing stuff contrary to America’s stated policies in the Middle East and still get even a symbolic defense pact.” Rarely has the old saw that U.S. stands for Uncle Sucker been more apt.
The UAE has been interested in obtaining a more formal security commitment from the United States for some time. Mohamed bin Zayed, who was recently elevated to president of the UAE following the death of his half-brother Khalifa, spoke to David Ignatius about his interest in a formal security pact last fall.
Since then, the idea of giving both the UAE and Saudi Arabia firmer security guarantees has been making the rounds in Washington. At least when it comes to the UAE, that idea seems to have found a receptive audience in the Biden administration. The nuclear negotiations with Iran have become another occasion for the UAE to demand more from the U.S., as their government and Israel’s have been lobbying for additional guarantees in the event that the nuclear deal is revived.
The main argument against increasing the U.S. commitment to the UAE is that it is detrimental to American interests and would serve only to enable more recklessness from their government. The last time that the U.S. wanted to “reassure” its Gulf Arab clients of its support, it began aiding and abetting in the destruction of Yemen. Despite years of unstinting U.S. support for that atrocious war, the Saudi and Emirati governments still complain that the U.S. is unreliable.
No matter what the U.S. has provided to these governments in the past, it is never enough to satisfy them. Whatever the Biden administration gives them now will just increase their appetite for more. The Trump years showed just how dangerous this pattern of indulging clients can be when the U.S. reneged on the nuclear deal and ramped up tensions with Iran in deference to its clients’ wishes. Biden risks similar dangers if he makes placating the Saudis and the UAE a priority during his presidency.
The last decade has provided plenty of evidence that Washington’s willingness to arm and support the UAE and other clients in the region produces only more instability and bloodshed. Continued U.S. backing for authoritarian clients in the region also implicates our government in their many abuses both within and outside their borders. Foreign policy often requires making unpalatable trade-offs, but in this case the U.S. doesn’t seem to get anything worthwhile in exchange for its reflexive support.
Rather than adding another commitment to defend the UAE, the U.S. should be considering how it can downgrade the relationship and reduce its support as much as possible. Withdrawing recently deployed U.S. forces would be a good place to start.
Security guarantees for the UAE could drag the U.S. into new conflicts in the future. It would likely involve maintaining a much larger military footprint in the region than U.S. interests require. At a time when the U.S. has relatively few interests in the Middle East and when it needs to focus its attention elsewhere, a bigger commitment to the UAE is exactly what the U.S. doesn’t need and shouldn’t offer.
At best, it is a waste of time and resources, and at worst it could ensnare the U.S. in another unnecessary war. It is easy to see how the UAE benefits from such an arrangement, but all that the U.S. gets from it is to be saddled with another unwelcome burden.
Daniel Larison is a regular columnist at Responsible Statecraft, contributing editor at Antiwar.com, and a former senior editor at The American Conservative magazine. He has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Chicago. He writes regularly for his newsletter, Eunomia, on Substack.
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken offer condolences to United Arab Emirates' President and ruler of Abu Dhabi Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan after the death of UAE's President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 16, 2022. United Arab Emirates Ministry of Presidential Affairs/Handout via REUTERS
MUNICH, GERMANY – The 60th year of the Munich Security Conference opened today with much of the early energy surrounding remarks by Vice President Kamala Harris.
The vice president noted that it was nearly two years since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. She said that when Putin unleashed his troops along different fronts in February 2022, “many thought Kyiv would fall within a day.” It is also true, as she pointed out, that “Ukraine has regained more than half the territory Russia occupied at the start of the conflict.” (Russia held about 7% before the invasion, 27% right after, and about 18% today.)
However, by choosing the first months of the war as the starting point of her speech, Harris sought to avoid the obvious. Namely, that in the year that has gone by since her last visit to Munich, the Ukrainian army has been losing ground. Yet, her remarks regarding Ukraine today did not differ much from her speech in 2023.
Harris seemed dedicated to keeping to the administration’s recent script, which is warning against heralding in a new era of “isolationism,” referring to President Biden's likely presidential election opponent, Donald Trump.
As president Biden and I have made clear over the past three years, we are committed to pursue global engagement, to uphold international rules and norms, to defend democratic values at home and abroad, and to work with our allies and partners in pursuit of shared goals.
As I travel throughout my country and the world, it is clear to me: this approach makes America strong. And it keeps Americans safe.
Interestingly, the U.S. has been accused of thwarting "international rules and norms" in its unconditional support of Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed upwards of 29,000 Palestinians, mostly of them civilians, since Hamas’s Oct. 7 invasion of Israel and hostage-taking. Christoph Heusgen, the chairman of the Munich Security Conference, asked Harris whether a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine was achievable. Harris answered that “the short answer is yes… but we must then put the discussion in context, starting with October 7.” Not 1948, not 1967, but October 7, 2023.
Her prepared remarks on the situation were very brief, overall, saying:
In the Middle East, we are working to end the conflict that Hamas triggered on October 7th as soon as possible and ensure it ends in a way where Israel is secure, hostages are released, the humanitarian crisis is resolved, Hamas does not control Gaza, and Palestinians can enjoy their right to security, dignity, freedom, and self-determination.
This work — while we also work to counter aggression from Iran and its proxies, prevent regional escalation, and promote regional integration.
October 7 was the topic of a conference side event hosted by Brigadier-General Gal Hirsch, Israel’s Coordinator for Hostages and Missing. In his opening speech, he called for a Global War on Kidnapping inspired by George Bush’s War on Terror. Hirsch was short on the specifics, and Israeli foreign minister Israel Katz did not develop the concept further when he followed Hirsch at the podium. During the event, several hostages released during the short ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in November 2023 described their harrowing experiences in captivity. Relatives of the remaining hostages accompanied them.
Meanwhile, in a morning event, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis discussed how to increase defense spending in a time of economic stagnation. Mitsotakis, whose country has always spent significantly more than the expected 2% of the GDP required by NATO, stated that defense policy cannot be done on a budget. Lindner, meanwhile, remarked that Germany is on the way to spending 2% of its GDP on defense. Economic prosperity, the German Liberal minister noted, should avoid tradeoffs between social and defense policies. This is certainly a difficult equation to square since the German government just announced it was reviewing its forecast for GDP growth in 2024 from 1.3% down to 0.2%.
Marc Martorell Junyent is in Munich, covering the conference for Responsible Statecraft this weekend. This story is developing.
keep readingShow less
Handout photo shows US President Joe Biden (C-R) and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky (C-L) take part in a bilateral meeting, on the final day of a three-day G-7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, on May 21, 2023. The final day of the three-day of the Group of Seven leaders' summit is under way in the western Japan city of Hiroshima, with focus on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his talks with international leaders. Photo by Ukrainian Presidency via ABACAPRESS.COM
Roughly 70% of Americans want the Biden administration to push Ukraine toward a negotiated peace with Russia as soon as possible, according to a new survey from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft.
Support for negotiations remained high when respondents were told such a move would include compromises by all parties, with two out of three respondents saying the U.S. should still pursue talks despite potential downsides. The survey shows a nine-point jump from a poll in late 2022 that surveyed likely voters. In that poll, 57% of respondents said they backed talks that would involve compromises.
The new data suggests that U.S. government policy toward the Ukraine war is increasingly out of step with public opinion on the eve of the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
“Americans’ strong support for U.S. diplomatic efforts to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine stands in stark contrast to Washington’s reluctance to use its considerable leverage to get Kyiv and Moscow to the negotiating table and end this war,” said George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute.
The Biden administration has publicly rejected the idea of negotiating an end to the war with Russia, with U.S. officials saying that they are prepared to back Ukraine “as long as it takes” to achieve the country’s goal of ejecting Russian troops from all of its territory, including Crimea.
Just this week, Russian sources told Reuters that the U.S. declined a Kremlin offer to pursue a ceasefire along the current frontlines in conversations held in late 2023 and early 2024, including a round of unofficial talks in Turkey.
U.S. officials denied the claim, saying there was no “official contact” between Moscow and Washington on the issue and that the U.S. would only agree to negotiations involving Ukraine. Reuters’ Russian sources claimed that American officials said they did not want to pressure Kyiv into talks.
The Harris/Quincy Institute poll involved an online survey of 2,090 American adults from Feb. 8 to 12. The results are weighted to ensure a representative sample of the U.S. population. The margin of error is 2.5% using a 95% confidence level.
As the House weighs whether to approve new aid for Ukraine, 48% of respondents said they support new funding as long as it is conditioned on progress toward a diplomatic solution to the war. Others disagreed over whether the U.S. should halt all aid (30%) or continue funding without specific conditions (22%).
This question revealed a sharp partisan divide on whether to continue Ukraine funding in any form. Fully 46% of Republicans favor an immediate shutoff of the aid spigot, as compared to 17% of Democrats.
Meanwhile, 54% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans favored conditioning aid on diplomatic talks. “The American people seem more clear-eyed than Washington in recognizing the urgent need to pair aid for Ukraine’s defense with a diplomatic offensive,” Beebe argued.
The poll also showed that most Americans expect the war to drag into at least 2025. Only 16% of respondents thought the war would end this year. Others were evenly split on how long the war might last, with 46% expecting it to be resolved before the end of 2026 and 38% saying there is no end in sight.
keep readingShow less
Diplomacy Watch: Domestic politics continue to challenge Ukraine’s allies
Diplomacy Watch: Domestic politics continue to challenge Ukraine’s allies
As Russia’s war in Ukraine approaches its two-year anniversary, President Vladimir Putin has reportedly had his suggestions of ceasefire rejected by Washington.
On Tuesday, Reuters reported that Russia had approached the United States through intermediaries in late 2023 and early 2024 to propose freezing the conflict along the current lines. Washington reportedly turned down the suggestion, saying that they were not willing to engage in talks if Ukraine was not a participant.
“Putin was proposing to freeze the conflict at the current lines and was unwilling to cede any of the Ukrainian territory controlled by Russia, but the signal offered what some in the Kremlin saw as the best path towards a peace of some kind,” according to Reuters, which cites three anonymous Russian sources.
The plan, one of the sources told Reuters, was for national security adviser Jake Sullivan to meet with the Russian counterpart to hash out the details. But after meeting with other senior officials including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and CIA Director Bill Burns, “Sullivan told Ushakov that Washington was willing to talk about other aspects of the relationship but would not speak about a ceasefire without Ukraine, said one of the Russian sources,” according to Reuters.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly said that there is no point in negotiating with Putin and has maintained that he will never accept Russia controlling any part of Ukraine.
"Everything fell apart with the Americans," one of the sources told Reuters, saying that Washington did not want to pressure Kyiv into reaching an agreement. The sources also added that given the U.S. reaction to a potential ceasefire, Moscow saw little reason to reach out again.
Both Washington and Moscow have denied the reporting.
The Kremlin “never made any kind of proposal to us nor have we seen any signs that Putin is sincerely interested in ending the war,” an unnamed U.S. official told Politico’s NatSec daily on Tuesday. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Wednesday that the report that Russia had made such an offer was “not true.”
Despite Washington’s insistence, this is the latest piece of evidence that Putin may have pursued a ceasefire in recent months. The New York Times reported late in 2023 that the Russian president had quietly been sending signals to the West that he was prepared to freeze the conflict.
“The signals come through multiple channels, including via foreign governments with ties to both the United States and Russia,” the Times reported. “Unofficial Russian emissaries have spoken to interlocutors about the contours of a potential deal that Mr. Putin would accept, American officials and others said.” The report also revealed that Putin had been interested in a potential ceasefire as far back as the fall of 2022, following Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive.
As journalist Leonid Ragozin explained in al-Jazeera earlier this week, this may be an effort to pressure the West to negotiate on Putin’s terms.
“What Putin is trying to achieve is making the West face its moral dilemma which boils down to the cost and benefit of resisting his aggression,” Ragozin writes. “The continued support for Ukraine’s military effort will cost thousands of lives and devastate Ukraine even further, while success is hardly guaranteed.”
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— The prospects for the next tranche of U.S. aid for Ukraine saw the first glimmer of optimism in months, but the chances that it becomes law remain murky. After a tumultuous negotiation, the Senate passed the $95 billion national security supplemental, which includes approximately $60 billion for Kyiv. The legislation next goes to the House of Representatives, which has been more skeptical of sending aid, and where leadership so far appears unwilling to bring the bill to the floor. Supporters believe that if the House voted on the package, it would pass overwhelmingly, and some have floated pursuing legislative maneuvers that would allow them to supersede leadership and bring the legislation to a vote.
— Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he spoke with Paul Whelan, the U.S. Marine currently detained in Russia, on Monday, according toCNN. Blinken provided few details on his conversation with Whelan, who has been detained since December 2018. When asked about a possible prisoner exchange involving Whelan or detained Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, the Kremlin said that such matters could only be resolved, “in silence.”
— French President Emmanuel Macron announced in a statement that he will sign a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine on Friday. Macron did not specify what exactly the agreement will look like, but he said earlier this year that he was expecting to model an agreement after the 10-year deal that the United Kingdom and Ukraine signed earlier this year.
— The Netherlands will join a coalition of countries that is providing Ukraine with advanced drones, according toReuters.
“Ukraine intends to manufacture thousands of long-range drones capable of deep strikes into Russia in 2024 and already has up to 10 companies working on production, Ukraine's digital minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, said in a Reuters interview on Monday.”
U.S. State Department news:
In a Wednesday press briefing, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller reiterated the importance of Congress passing the supplemental, stressing that it was in the national security interest of Ukraine, Europe, and the United States.
“A lot of that money is spent here, helps develop the manufacturing base here in the United States. And so we will continue to push for the passage of the supplemental bill, and ultimately we think – as the President said, the world is watching,” Miller said. “And certainly I’m sure that when we are in Munich we will hear directly from foreign leaders that they are watching very much what Congress does. We know the Ukrainian people are watching. And as the President said, history is watching as well.”