分类： politics

Algeria’s historic decision to cut full diplomatic ties with the United Arab Emirates this Thursday cannot be boiled down to a simple sum of long-running disagreements over regional hotspots including Western Sahara, Israel, Libya and the Sahel. Many of these frictions have festered for years, and for decades, Algiers found a way to separate its opposition to Abu Dhabi’s regional policies from ongoing bilateral cooperation. What shifted, ultimately, was how Algiers framed those individual disagreements: once isolated disputes gradually coalesced into a single, core challenge to Algerian national sovereignty and security, making the old balance of managed tension unsustainable.

For years, this uneasy but functional coexistence held. As recently as February 2023, Algiers hosted the 11th meeting of the two countries’ joint military cooperation committee, where Algerian army chief Said Chanegriha formally welcomed his Emirati counterpart. That same month, the bilateral economic commission convened in Abu Dhabi, signed multiple new trade and investment agreements, and Algerian officials openly discussed the possibility of upgrading ties to a formal strategic partnership. Political contact persisted even after tensions began to spill into public view: in June 2024, several months after strains became apparent, Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune and UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed held a brief conversation on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Italy.

This quiet continuity did not mean the two states saw eye to eye on core regional issues. The UAE had opened a consulate in Laayoune, Western Sahara, back in 2020, openly backing Morocco’s claim of sovereignty over the disputed territory—a direct rebuke of Algeria’s longstanding support for the pro-independence Polisario Front. Abu Dhabi also normalized diplomatic relations with Israel in 2020, against Algerian opposition, and threw its support behind Libyan military strongman Khalifa Haftar during Libya’s years-long civil conflict. Even with these stark disagreements on the record, Algiers continued to compartmentalize: it opposed Emirati regional choices, but kept separate bilateral channels of cooperation open.

That compartmentalization began to collapse in late 2023. The first major turning point came after Algeria’s bid to join the expanded BRICS grouping failed. Algerian government-aligned media widely attributed the failed candidacy to deliberate behind-the-scenes lobbying by the UAE to block Algeria’s accession. While official Algerian statements did confirm Emirati opposition during closed-door BRICS deliberations, the full internal decision-making process of BRICS member states remains confidential. The significance of the accusation, however, lies not in its verification, but in how it reframed the UAE’s role: for the first time, Abu Dhabi was being blamed directly for a high-profile Algerian diplomatic setback, rather than simply being a disagreeing party in third-party conflicts.

A second, more strategically significant shift came with the collapse of Algeria’s hard-won mediation role in Mali. In November 2023, Malian government forces, backed by their Russian allies, retook the key city of Kidal from a coalition of predominantly Tuareg separatist rebels. The following January, Mali’s government formally terminated the 2015 Algiers Peace Agreement, a deal brokered and shepherded by Algeria that had given Algiers an official institutional role in managing conflict along its southern border. The agreement’s collapse erased a key source of Algerian leverage in northern Mali and gutted one of the most important mechanisms Algiers used to manage its immediate southern security environment.

While the UAE did not cause this sequence of events—Bamako, Moscow, and Algiers itself all played distinct roles in the agreement’s unraveling—Abu Dhabi had already built a visible security footprint in Mali. It had established formal security cooperation with Bamako, contributed €30 million to the G5 Sahel regional counterterrorism force, and supplied armored vehicles to the Malian military. As Algeria’s own influence in Mali declined, this Emirati presence was increasingly framed in Algiers as part of a broader campaign of regional encroachment on Algeria’s sphere of influence.

This re-framing quickly moved to the highest levels of Algeria’s national security institutions. On January 10, 2024, Algeria’s High Security Council held a meeting to discuss developments in neighboring countries and the Sahel, and formally denounced “hostile acts” by an unnamed “brotherly Arab country.” While the UAE was not explicitly named, the dispute had officially entered Algeria’s top national security body. Over the following two years, this framing of the UAE as a hostile actor spread to presidential speeches, new restrictions from the Algerian Ministry of Justice on select business transactions linked to Emirati entities, and sustained critical coverage in Algerian state media.

The next flashpoint came in May 2025, when Sky News Arabia, a UAE-based media outlet, aired an interview with Algerian academic Mohamed El-Amine Belghit, in which he claimed Amazigh identity was a “Franco-Zionist creation.” The backlash in Algeria extended far beyond simple disagreement with Belghit’s remarks: Algeria’s High Commission for Amazighity issued a formal condemnation, and Algerian state television framed the broadcast as a deliberate attack on Algeria’s national identity and internal cohesion. For Algiers, this meant a UAE media platform had now inserted itself directly into a debate over Algeria’s domestic national cohesion.

By February 2026, President Tebboune made this shifting framing explicit. Without naming the UAE directly, he accused the Gulf state of interfering in Algerian domestic elections, and in the same interview, referenced looming threats of international arbitration over Emirati investments in the country. No concrete underlying evidence for the interference allegation has been made public to date, but its core impact is political: the president himself had now redefined the bilateral relationship through the lens of domestic political sovereignty, not just regional power competition.

Economic ties between the two states reveal why this political redefinition did not lead to an immediate, complete break. From early 2024, Algerian authorities instructed local notaries to halt all new property transactions involving companies tied to the bilateral Algerian-Emirati tobacco partnership, and subsequent investigations targeted actors linked to the sector. Yet other longstanding joint projects remained in place: Emirati logistics giant DP World continues to operate ports in Algiers and Djen Djen, and the Algerian defense ministry still lists the Safav automobile manufacturing plant in Tiaret as an official joint partnership with Emirati firm Aabar Investment.

These remaining ties do not undermine Algeria’s framing of the dispute as a national security issue. Instead, they simply reflect a difference in pace: states can redefine a bilateral relationship politically far faster than they can unwind decades of accumulated contracts, concessions and joint ventures. Tebboune’s reference to potential international arbitration makes this constraint clear: the economic relationship became part of the unfolding conflict, even as it slowed the pace of full material disengagement from Emirati partners.

This same gap between political reorientation and practical implementation was visible in aviation. Algeria began the formal process of terminating the bilateral air services agreement in early 2026, though Emirati civil aviation officials confirmed that commercial flights would continue operating through the mandatory legal notice period. When Algiers ultimately closed its airspace to all UAE-registered aircraft, commercial flights serving Algiers were granted a temporary exemption through the end of 2026. Even at the moment of formal diplomatic rupture, full practical separation remained incomplete.

Nor did the collapse of the Mali peace agreement alone explain the timing of the final break in September. By July 2026, Algeria and Mali had restored full ambassadorial relations and reopened their shared airspace, ending a months-long bilateral crisis between the two neighbors. But this improvement in Algerian-Malian ties did not reverse the deterioration of Algeria-UAE relations, because by that point, the dispute with Abu Dhabi had already taken on a broader, institutionalized meaning as a challenge to Algerian sovereignty.

Tebboune himself acknowledged in July 2026 that Algeria could have broken diplomatic relations much earlier, but held off to avoid deepening divisions within the Arab world. This confirmation makes clear that a full rupture had been a viable political option for Algiers long before September, and did not require a single new, triggering event to move forward.

Another critical contextual layer sheds light on the long arc of this dispute: Algeria’s exclusion from expanded BRICS and the erosion of its Mali mediation role were setbacks with multiple contributing causes, rooted in decisions from Bamako and Moscow as well as Algiers’s own policy choices. The growing focus on the UAE as the primary antagonist emerged against a backdrop of broad regional transformation that cannot be blamed on any single external actor.

In the absence of publicly disclosed official documents or formal legal proceedings, the dispute remains framed by official statements and institutional measures. But that does not erase the profound institutional shift that has occurred. What distinguishes the later phase of the conflict is that individual foreign policy setbacks, allegations of political interference, media controversies and targeted economic restrictions were no longer treated as disconnected, separate issues. Instead, they were increasingly tied together through a unified narrative of threats to Algerian sovereignty and national security.

This narrative of suspicion around Emirati influence did not originate in Algerian state institutions in the 2020s. During the 2019 Hirak protest movement, which ousted long-ruling former President Abdelaziz Bouteflika after he announced a bid for a fifth term, many protesters already harbored deep suspicion of Abu Dhabi, and accused the UAE of backing political forces seeking to preserve the old Bouteflika-era order. Seven years later, that grassroots suspicion has acquired formal institutional weight within the Algerian state. This continuity helps explain why the rupture resonates so strongly with domestic audiences, even as the state’s formal accusations differ from the original claims of the 2019 Hirak movement.

The European Union’s top foreign policy representative Kaja Kallas has ignited fresh debate over the bloc’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by calling on EU member states to adopt the same uncompromising stance on illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories that the bloc took against Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea.

In an interview with The Irish Times published Friday, Kallas argued that the EU cannot maintain its credibility as a global actor if it remains divided on how to respond to aggressive actions by the Israeli government and violent extremist Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. She urged member states to align behind a principle-driven policy: a bloc-wide ban on all trade with goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements, a measure that is fully consistent with existing international law, which universally recognizes settlements as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Kallas noted that the total volume of EU trade with the settlements remains small in economic terms, but emphasized that implementing the ban would carry outsized symbolic weight, sending a clear message that the bloc does not accept illegal territorial annexation. To circumvent long-standing opposition from a handful of member states—including Germany, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovenia, which have blocked unanimous foreign policy sanctions against Israeli settlement activity—Kallas proposed framing the ban as a trade regulation rather than a formal sanctions measure. This procedural shift would only require a majority vote among member states to pass, rather than the unanimous consent needed for foreign policy sanctions, clearing a key path to approval.

According to Kallas, the European Commission is facing explicit pressure from a majority of national governments to formally table the trade ban proposal. She added that EU institutions have faced widespread public and political criticism for their failure to impose any punitive measures on Israel amid the ongoing military campaign in Gaza that has been widely condemned as genocidal by international human rights bodies and legal experts.

“When Russia occupied Crimea, we all agreed it was illegal, we refused to recognize the annexation, and we immediately cut off all trade with goods coming from the occupied peninsula,” Kallas said. “We need to hold the same principled line here: everyone acknowledges these settlements are illegal, so we must end all trade with products from the occupied Palestinian territories.”

Kallas’ comparison is rooted in recent EU history: within four months of Russia’s February 2014 invasion and annexation of Crimea, the bloc had implemented a full ban on Crimean-origin goods and broad economic sanctions on Moscow, eventually expanding restrictions to cover arms, energy, and technology exports to Russia.

Kallas’ call comes as Israel faces mounting diplomatic pressure from its traditional Western allies, as global public approval for Israel’s actions in Gaza and the occupied territories has dropped to historic lows. Earlier this month, on September 8, the United Kingdom became the first major Western power to implement national sanctions targeting Israeli settlement activity, and 10 other European nations plus Canada joined the UK in a joint statement affirming their plan to introduce domestic restrictions and back EU-level measures targeting illegal settlement trade.

Israeli officials have pushed back aggressively against the UK’s decision. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar announced a package of retaliatory measures, including closing the British consulate in occupied East Jerusalem and barring 11 sitting British members of parliament from entering Israeli and occupied territory. Even the United States’ ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, waded into the dispute, launching a vitriolic attack on British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband—who is Jewish—accusing him of “Jew hate” and threatening further retaliation against the UK.

The rising tensions over settlements follow an August announcement from the Israeli government that it would approve construction of the long-contested E1 settlement project, which will add 3,400 new housing units to existing settlements in the West Bank and effectively cut the occupied Palestinian territory in half, ending any possibility of a contiguous future Palestinian state. The approval drew widespread condemnation from governments and international bodies across the globe.

Kallas’ new public stance marks a notable shift, as reports have previously revealed she has privately compared Israel’s systematic treatment of Palestinians to the apartheid regime that once ruled South Africa. It also stands in sharp contrast to her earlier public position: just months ago, at a March 2025 press conference, Kallas reaffirmed the EU’s “solidarity with Israel and its people” and emphasized that the bloc views Israeli security as a core priority for Europe.

In a revealing interview with *Going Underground*, prominent conservative American political commentator Tucker Carlson has laid out a controversial claim about the underlying drivers of the ongoing war between Israel and Iran, arguing the conflict is a calculated gambit by Israel to secure unchallenged regional dominance at the expense of Gulf nations and long-standing American military presence in the region.

Carlson, who says he shared his analysis of Israel’s strategic goals directly with former US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office just weeks after the war began, outlined the multi-layered ambition he attributes to Israeli leadership. According to Carlson, Israel’s core end goal is uncontested hegemony across the Middle East, a objective that requires eliminating regional counterpoints including Iran and its allied militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, while also removing potential economic and political competition from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

“The point here is Israeli regional hegemony. That’s why they’re pushing for this war on Iran. They want to control their region,” Carlson stated in the interview. He added that beyond neutralizing Iran and its proxies, Israel seeks to expand its sovereign borders, framing Iran and its allied groups as the primary barriers to that territorial expansion.

Unlike many conventional analyses that frame growing Gulf economic development as a shared regional opportunity, Carlson argues Israel views the progress of the six-nation GCC — which counts Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates among its members — as a direct strategic threat. “It doesn’t want the GCC because they’re building these kind of amazing societies,” he said. “That’s a massive threat to Israel.”

The final, most provocative plank of Carlson’s thesis is that the war’s overarching goal is to destabilize the Gulf region, weaken both Iran and the GCC, and ultimately force the United States to completely withdraw its military forces from Gulf Cooperation Council countries. He emphasized that this objective runs counter to stated American interests in the region, noting “this is actually aimed at us.”

Carlson said he presented this analysis to Trump during a meeting in mid-February, shortly after the war commenced. The commentator, who noted he has traveled and worked extensively across the Gulf for 25 years, pointed to Trump’s well-documented personal rapport with Gulf leaders to underscore the puzzle of the former president’s policy choices. “Trump likes the GCC leaders, they’re incredible, they’re incredibly gracious people,” Carlson said. “Trump had no motive and no desire to hurt [GCC countries]. And yet he unleashed a sequence of events knowing that this could happen that badly damaged those countries. Why did he do that?”

Carlson criticized mainstream American media for largely ignoring this critical question, adding that he hopes future historical research will uncover a clear answer. He also pushed back on the widespread assumption that a large permanent American military presence in the Gulf naturally benefits Israel, arguing that US forces act as a check on Israeli expansionist ambitions. “From an Israeli perspective, those are control mechanisms. Those are leashes that we use to constrain Israeli behaviour,” he explained. “And they don’t want to be constrained because they have a greater vision of their future.”

Carlson’s claims emerge against a backdrop of escalating regional instability that has already put intense pressure on Gulf states and exposed vulnerabilities in both local infrastructure and American military installations across the Persian Gulf. The International Institute for Strategic Studies documented in a March report that Iran has launched thousands of missiles and drones targeting all six GCC member states since the start of the US-Israeli air campaign, with the goal of spreading the cost of the conflict to Gulf nations and demonstrating the limits of Israeli military power.

Independent reporting has also confirmed widespread damage to American military assets in the region. A May Washington Post analysis of satellite imagery found that at least 228 buildings and pieces of military equipment at US sites have been damaged or destroyed since the war began. By August, US defense officials confirmed the Pentagon was actively evaluating a drawdown of American military forces in the Persian Gulf following months of persistent Iranian attacks on bases in the region.

Gulf energy infrastructure has also been targeted repeatedly: Saudi Arabia recently shut down its critical East-West oil pipeline following a drone attack that Riyadh blames on Iraq-based militants, while stepped-up Houthi attacks have put consistent pressure on Saudi Arabia’s energy and national security networks.