Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2082946732

Occupied Yemeni island could host part of US-led missile defense system

Critics say the proposal is hypocritical given Washington’s opposition to taking territory through force in places like Ukraine.

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East

There's no place on Earth like Socotra. With its dragon's blood trees and white sandy beaches, the Yemeni island looks like it was pulled straight from a sequel to James Cameron’s Avatar. But the island's unique ecology is threatened by another of its quirks: it is situated squarely at the mouth of the Gulf of Aden, through which ships bound for the West must pass on their way to the Suez Canal.

As Yemen’s civil war raged, the United Arab Emirates arrived on Socotra in 2015 and, despite protests from nearly all warring factions, have slowly expanded their influence since. Today, calls to the island are made using the UAE's country code, and tourists fly from Abu Dhabi without a Yemeni visa — a situation that some argue amounts to annexation.

The Emiratis have also established a military presence on Socotra. And, according to a recent article in Breaking Defense, they are considering expanding that presence by putting missile defense sensors on the island, which would support a nascent, U.S.-led alliance made up of Israel and several Arab states.

Critics of this proposal worry that increased militarization of Socotra would entrench Abu Dhabi's influence in the archipelago and damage its local wildlife, much of which cannot be found anywhere else. They also argue that U.S. endorsement of such a move would contradict the position that it is illegal to take territory in war, a stance that underpins the West’s response to Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

“It just makes any work that [U.S. officials] do about Ukraine seem not honest and not true,” said Aisha Jumaan of the Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation. “Whatever reasons that they are saying in response to the Russian aggression against Ukraine just seems one-sided.”

Jumaan contends that this contradictory stance led to the international split over how to deal with the war in Ukraine. “A lot of countries in the world actually are not supporting the U.S. position because they see that the U.S. picks and chooses the causes that it wants to support,” she said. 

Some experts also invoke Western Sahara, a territory that nearly all of the international community says is illegally occupied by Morocco. The United States held that position until President Donald Trump recognized Rabat’s rule over the region as legitimate, a move widely seen as a sweetener for Moroccan normalization with Israel.

As Peter Beinart pointed out in the Guardian, Biden has maintained this policy toward Western Sahara despite opposition from advocates of international law and human rights. “The Biden administration has also boosted arms sales to Morocco even though the US-based democracy watchdog Freedom House reports that people in Western Sahara enjoy fewer freedoms than people in China or Iran,” Beinart wrote.

The White House declined to comment on the story. Responsible Statecraft also reached out to the UAE’s embassy in Washington, D.C., the Department of Defense, and four members of Congress who support the idea of a Middle East air defense alliance, none of whom responded.

Abu Dhabi first began to militarize Socotra around 2018, when it established a military base on the island. The move came with the imprimatur of the Southern Transitional Council, a UAE-backed faction that seeks independence for South Yemen.

This policy also earned implicit support from the United States. Unlike Yemen’s internationally recognized government, Washington has never condemned Abu Dhabi’s presence on the island, and the U.S. continues to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to the UAE.

And concerns about the proposed missile sensors go beyond international law. Experts worry the growing military alignment could inflame tensions with Iran and damage chances for diplomacy between Tehran and its Arab counterparts. And former intelligence officer Paul Pillar recently argued in Responsible Statecraft that such a security agreement “would risk dragging the United States into conflicts that stem from the ambitions and objectives of regional players and not from U.S. national interests.”

Some also wonder whether the placement makes strategic sense when it comes to countering Iranian missiles. “[T]here are other locations inside Yemen that can best serve this purpose since drones are launched from mainland Yemen toward Riyadh,” said Fernando Carvajal, a former member of the UN’s Yemen Panel of Experts, in an email to Responsible Statecraft.

As Carvajal noted, the people of Socotra largely do not consider the island to be occupied. This situation is in some ways similar to Russia’s de facto annexation of Crimea prior to the current war, which earned some praise among the region’s residents despite its illegality under international law. And this local ambivalence will no doubt complicate any talks aimed at ending the war in Yemen and returning Socotra to Sanaa’s control.

But what is clear is that Abu Dhabi has significant influence over the archipelago and little interest in changing that anytime soon. Highlighting this influence, Jumaan pointed to a recent tweet from Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a prominent Emirati academic considered close to the UAE’s rulers. “Good morning from Socotra,” Abdulla wrote under a picture of him in flip flops on a beach. “Some of the wonderful people I’ve talked to here hope [the island] becomes the eighth emirate of the UAE.”

“It's just so blatant,” Jumaan said. “Without the U.S. this would not be possible.”


Dragon's blood trees on Socotra Island. (Shutterstock/ Zaruba Ondrej)
Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.