A US magazine described the United Arab Emirates as the main supporter of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East under its leadership of counter-revolution to combat the aspirations of democratization and change.
US researcher Tyler Bellstrom said in an article in the New Republic magazine that the UAE supports the establishment of authoritarian regimes in the region because they fear political Islam and democracy. Therefore, they support the retired Khalifa Hafter and support the army in Sudan to seize power after the Former president Omar Bashir stepped down.
“Contrary to popular perception, the UAE has repeatedly outspent Saudi Arabia when it comes to lobbying money in the United States. In 2017, the UAE government spent over $21 million as compared to Saudi Arabia’s roughly $14 million—a gap that persisted in 2018 as well,” the writer said.
With these funds, The UAE has bought interesting friends in Washington, as well as in other capitals around the world.
According to FARA, David Rothkopf, former editor of Foreign Policy and a former Clinton administration official, receives $ 50,000 a month from the UAE for media advice, which is a relationship that has been disclosed in his opinion articles or on the television program discusses the Middle East policy, according to the article.
The UAE donated funds to the US Progress Center, a research center founded by John Podesta, the White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration, who maintained ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The UAE and its representatives also looked forward to making ties with Republican-related figures and President Trump, such as Elliott Broidy, former RNC vice president and former chief executive officer of Blackwater, Eric Prince, in order to make an influence in Washington and influencing policymakers, the writer says.
Yousef Al Otaiba, the UAE ambassador to the United States, continues to organize concerts and fundraising, where frequent concerts of many US politicians are held at Cafe Milano.
What the UAE wants is very clear. It is an authoritarian state that supports the establishment of authoritarian regimes because it fears political Islam and democracy. Therefore, it supports Libyan General Hafer in his war against the Government of National Accord in Tripoli, the elected transitional government. The UAE wants the Muslim Brotherhood to be only outlawed but labeled a terrorist organization which is part of the government headed by Fayez al-Sarraj.
The writer says: “In classic international relations theory, a client state is a state that is economically, politically or military subordinate to another more powerful state. Thus, the United Arab Emirates is at least theoretically a client state of the United States. But while the United States provides markets, weapons, and military protection to the UAE, the UAE’s interests and goals seem to be driving United States policy in the Middle East.”
According to the author, the United States is pushing for a disastrous war with Iran. On May 5, John Bolton, according to intelligence, announced that Iran was going to attack US military assets in the Middle East and that the United States would send an aircraft carrier and bombers to the area as a precautionary measure.
Bolton said he would hold Iran responsible for any attacks on US interests or allies by either Iran’s Revolutionary Guards or “agents.”
On May 12, several oil tankers in UAE waterways were subjected to subversive attacks, with Abu Dhabi issuing few details. A day later, the Pentagon’s war plans were leaked in the event of a conflict with Iran to the press.
After the Houthis in Yemen attacked Saudi pipelines with drones, Trump announced via Twitter that if Iran wanted to fight, it would be its end.
The United States later blamed Iran for the actions of the Houthis in Yemen and implicitly announced its willingness to hold the enemies of the UAE and Saudi Arabia to account.
The American researcher concludes his article by pointing out that Iran poses no threat to the United States, yet American politicians think of launching a war on it, a war that carries high risks and may be the most destructive in the region, and therefore the practical consequences of the foreign policy of the United States.