分类： politics

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – As swirling rumors of potential negotiations between Iran and the United States gained traction in regional and international policy circles, Iran’s state-owned television released an official on-screen statement Tuesday clarifying that no Iranian diplomatic delegation has traveled to Islamabad for discussions as of yet. This public correction comes amid a backdrop of rising internal tension within Iran’s theocratic leadership, which is grappling with how to respond to a recent high-seizure of an Iranian container vessel by the U.S. Navy over the weekend. For decades, Iran’s state television has remained under the direct control of hardline factions within the country’s ruling establishment, making its public messaging a key window into internal ideological divides. To date, no senior Iranian official has confirmed plans to dispatch a negotiating team to the Pakistani capital, where Pakistani officials have reportedly maintained preparedness for days in anticipation of the potential talks. U.S. officials have confirmed that Vice President JD Vance is tapped to lead the American delegation if talks move forward, while Iran has yet to announce any representative to head its side. The last time direct talks between the two nations occurred, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf led Tehran’s delegation. Public discourse around resuming diplomatic talks with the U.S. remains entirely absent from official Iranian media and public government channels, with extreme hardline factions voicing strong public pushback against any renewed negotiations in recent days. This opposition has only hardened following the U.S. seizure of the Iranian container ship, a move that has escalated already heightened tensions between the two nations. Online, a growing campaign has called for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei to issue an official public statement clarifying his stance on whether the Islamic Republic should move forward with new talks. However, the newly installed supreme leader has not released any public comment, and no verified images of him have been published since the start of the ongoing conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States. U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials have claimed Khamenei was wounded in an attack carried out earlier in the conflict. The absence of the supreme leader from public view has shifted governing power firmly toward Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, the institution that has led much of Iran’s military operations throughout the ongoing conflict. Guard commanders have largely operated with limited oversight from central Tehran authorities when selecting targets and coordinating military actions, a dynamic that has only become more pronounced amid the current leadership vacuum. Iran’s civilian political leadership has remained largely silent on the issue of potential talks, a silence made more notable by a recent public misstatement from Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Over the weekend, Araghchi posted online that the Strait of Hormuz, the critical global oil chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf to international open waters, had been reopened to full traffic – a claim that was immediately retracted and denied by other senior officials in Tehran. Since the U.S. and Israel launched coordinated military strikes against Iran on Feb. 28 that ignited the current open conflict, Tehran has restricted commercial vessel traffic through the strait, a move that has rippled through global energy markets. In response to Iran’s actions and ongoing pressure from hardline domestic factions, the U.S. has implemented a full naval blockade of major Iranian ports, further isolating the country’s economy and escalating the ongoing military standoff.

On the 131st anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki — the unequal agreement that saw Japan occupy Taiwan following the First Sino-Japanese War — a Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer completed a highly unusual 14-hour transit through the Taiwan Strait, a move Chinese military authorities and analysts have universally condemned as a premeditated, malicious provocation. China’s People’s Liberation Army has issued a resolute warning, stating it will not hesitate to take firm countermeasures if Tokyo continues its encroachment on Chinese sovereignty.

The vessel in question, the JS Ikazuchi, a older Murasame-class destroyer, made the extremely slow passage through the 370-kilometer strait on April 18, 2026. Military analysts note that a journey of this distance would normally take a fraction of the 14 hours the Japanese ship spent in the waterway, making any claim of “routine innocent passage” indefensible.

Song Zhongping, a retired PLA Rocket Force officer and prominent military affairs commentator, framed the slow transit as a deliberate show of force intended to embolden secessionist “Taiwan independence” forces. “This was by no means normal navigation,” Song explained. “It was an intentional display of military power and a targeted provocation, designed to send dangerous, encouraging signals to Taiwan separatists. By acting this way, Japan is only paving the way for its own consequences.”

Song further emphasized that even relative to the current PLA Navy, the decades-old Ikazuchi is an outdated vessel, noting that the Chinese military already holds overwhelming capability to neutralize any such provocation, and has only exercised maximum restraint to this point. That restraint will not hold indefinitely, however. “If Japan continues to escalate its provocations, or if other U.S. allies persist in similar acts of aggression, the PLA will not rule out taking decisive, resolute measures to end the threat,” Song said. He added that the long-held policy of refraining from firing the first shot is not an unchangeable principle: any incursion on China’s core national interests, sovereignty, and security in itself counts as the other side firing first, and will justify a full counterresponse. “When national interests are violated, firing the first shot becomes a fully legitimate option. Old scores and new wrongs will be settled together if Japan continues on its current path,” Song stressed.

China’s Ministry of National Defense formally confirmed on the same day as the transit that it had already lodged a strong official protest with Tokyo over the incident. Senior Colonel Zhang Xiaogang, the ministry’s spokesperson, said the Japanese warship’s actions sent a clear wrong signal to Taiwan’s secessionist camp, and would only strengthen the Chinese people’s resolve to push back against external interference. “The Chinese military maintains constant high alert, and will take all necessary firm measures to counter any outside meddling in our internal affairs,” Zhang said.

The PLA’s Eastern Theater Command, which is responsible for operations in the East China Sea and Taiwan region, also deployed coordinated naval and air assets to track and monitor the Japanese destroyer for the full duration of its transit, maintaining full operational control of the situation throughout the incident.

The deliberate timing of the transit — coming exactly 131 years after the 1895 signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki that ceded Taiwan to Japanese colonial rule — sparked widespread public outrage among Chinese internet users. One Weibo user noted that the treaty left a permanent, deep national wound for China, calling the destroyer’s deliberate incursion a calculated test of China’s red lines on core sovereignty issues.

Fellow military analyst Wu Peinci pointed out that the transit aligns with Japan’s broader long-term strategy of pushing for constitutional revision, accelerating military expansion, and advancing its remilitarization, all in an effort to break free from the constraints of the post-WWII international order. “Japan is seeking to gradually establish a renewed military presence in the Taiwan Strait and even position itself to intervene militarily in the Taiwan question, which is an internal matter of China,” Wu said. “China will never compromise on this, will never allow a repeat of the history of Japanese invasion and humiliation, and leaves no room for ambiguity when it comes to blocking Japanese military meddling in the strait.”

In the days following the incident, official PLA media outlets published repeated clear warnings to Japan, cautioning that such provocative actions will carry catastrophic, irreversible consequences. An editorial on the PLA’s official WeChat account noted that Tokyo has already accelerated military deployments on its southern islands adjacent to Taiwan, and is now creating new instability by sending warships through the Taiwan Strait. “This makes clear the dangerous intent of certain Japanese politicians to interfere militarily in the Taiwan question,” the editorial read. “Japan must see the situation clearly, act with prudence, and immediately halt all reckless moves on the Taiwan question. If Tokyo persists in its wrongdoing and refuses to change course, it will only bring ruin upon itself and pay an unbearable price.”

Half a century after a chance encounter on a team bus reshaped the course of modern international relations, participants and new generations alike are marking 55 years since the groundbreaking Ping-Pong Diplomacy that laid the groundwork for normalized relations between China and the United States.

On April 10, 2026, a commemorative event held in Beijing honored this historic milestone, while also launching a new series of sports exchange programs designed to connect young athletes from both countries. Attendees at the event even had the unique opportunity to test their table tennis skills against an AI-powered robot, blending the 1971 moment of diplomatic breakthrough with cutting-edge modern innovation. The event, first reported by China Daily, gathered veterans of the original exchange alongside rising young athletes to reflect on how far bilateral ties have come — and how the core mission of people-to-people connection remains just as vital.

Liang Geliang, now 75, was one of the youngest members of China’s national table tennis team when he traveled to the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan, the gathering that set the diplomacy in motion. Speaking with reporters from China Daily, Liang, who lives with tinnitus, asked for a slower pace to recount his first-hand memory of the encounter that would change global history. When 19-year-old American player Glenn Cowan missed his team’s bus after a practice session and boarded the Chinese team’s bus instead, Chinese champion Zhuang Zedong extended a warm public welcome, a small gesture that sent shockwaves through a world where Cold War divides had cut off all official contact between the two nations for more than two decades.

Recalling the days after that iconic bus ride, Liang described an impromptu practice between the young players from both sides. “I was 21 that year, it was my first time competing at the World Table Tennis Championship, and Cowan was right there on our bus to the stadium. After we got off the bus, he used simple English and gestures to ask for a practice round,” Liang said. “The group of us, all young men around the same age, played for more than 10 minutes, and we had such a good time together. We all knew even then that this wasn’t just about hitting a ball back and forth — it was the start of a cross-border friendship.”

That unexpected moment of connection quickly snowballed into a historic opening. Just weeks after the Nagoya encounter, on April 10, 1971, an official United States table tennis delegation arrived in China. This was the first official delegation from the United States to be invited and granted entry into China since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, breaking a 22-year diplomatic freeze. When the visiting American players competed in friendly exhibition matches against their Chinese counterparts across multiple Chinese cities, including a landmark match at Beijing’s Capital Indoor Stadium, the matches sparked widespread excitement among Chinese audiences, turning ordinary athletes into accidental ambassadors for bilateral friendship.

Five and a half decades later, participants say while the geopolitical landscape and both nations themselves have transformed beyond recognition, the personal connections and core lesson of Ping-Pong Diplomacy — that people-to-people exchange can open doors that official diplomacy cannot — has stood the test of time. The new youth exchange initiative launched at this year’s anniversary event carries that legacy forward, aiming to build new bonds between the next generation of Chinese and Americans through the shared love of sport.

Recent attacks from former president and current US leader Donald Trump against Pope Leo XIV and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni have inadvertently revealed a potential path to de-escalation and lasting peace between the United States and Iran. By falsely claiming that the pair’s opposition to his war on Iran equates to supporting Tehran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons – and even a potential nuclear attack on Italy – Trump has publicly reframed the core purpose of the conflict, shifting it away from the original goal of regime change to a singular focus on blocking Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal.

This rhetorical shift, which carries the political risk of alienating the estimated 53 million Catholic voters across the United States, signals that Trump is now seeking to force Iran into accepting new constraints on its nuclear program. A negotiated agreement on this front would allow him to claim a form of political victory and wind down the conflict without a total defeat. While this outcome is feasible, achieving a lasting deal would require Washington to secure backing from two unlikely sources: China, and the political allies and frameworks Trump has spent years condemning – the administration of former US President Barack Obama, and the governments of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.

As the current US-Iran ceasefire approaches its April 21 expiration, nuclear policy is far from the only sticking point between the two nations. Significant divides remain on a host of critical issues: the long-term governance rules for the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil supplies pass; the sweeping Western sanctions imposed on Iranian exports, sovereign foreign assets, and domestic financial institutions; Iran’s long-standing military and political support for militant groups Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthi movement in Yemen; and the future development of Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Even so, Trump’s recent focus on nuclear non-proliferation as the conflict’s core goal suggests that this issue could serve as the key to unlocking progress on all other sticking points, at least from his perspective.

It is widely agreed across the global community that expanding the circle of nuclear-armed states beyond the current nine – the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, and North Korea – poses unacceptable risks to global security. The foundational global framework for managing this risk has been the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which binds nuclear and non-nuclear states alike to blocking the spread of nuclear weapons technology while enabling the peaceful sharing of civilian nuclear energy technology.

In the decades since the NPT entered into force, three new openly nuclear-armed states have emerged: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel has also developed an unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, and experts widely believe that existing nuclear powers provided clandestine support to many of these new programs. While this gradual proliferation is a cause for concern, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has acted as a powerful deterrent: with the notable exception of North Korea, analysts broadly agree that no nuclear-armed state would ever launch a nuclear attack, as it would immediately prompt devastating retaliation. The greatest existential nuclear risk today, by contrast, is the possibility of nuclear materials or weapons falling into the hands of non-state terrorist groups that cannot be deterred by the threat of reciprocal attack.

For 25 years, since evidence of Iran’s secret advanced uranium enrichment program first emerged, global powers have pursued diplomatic means to ensure Iran’s nuclear program remains exclusively for civilian energy use, not weapons development. After years of multilateral negotiations, this effort culminated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 group – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China.

The JCPOA placed strict verifiable limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, mandated regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and offered phased relief from crippling Western sanctions in exchange for compliance. Though European powers led much of the late-stage diplomatic work, the agreement was widely hailed as one of former President Barack Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievements. Remarkably, even rival major powers Russia and China agreed to back the deal – making it a top target for Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign. Shortly after taking office in 2018, Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA and reimposed all US sanctions on Iran.

Israel has never supported the JCPOA, arguing that Iran’s long history of secret nuclear activities means it cannot be trusted to uphold its non-proliferation commitments, especially given Iran’s ongoing support for groups that regularly target Israeli territory. While other powers argue that any Iranian nuclear weapon would be deterred by the threat of massive retaliation from Israel or the US, Israeli leaders have refused to test this proposition.

The great irony of the current moment, however, is that any new negotiations between US and Iranian negotiators will almost certainly center on an updated version of the 2015 JCPOA – the very agreement Trump shredded seven years ago.

Following US and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure in June 2025, Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity has been drastically reduced, a key change from the 2015 baseline. A new outstanding issue that will need resolution is Iran’s current stockpile of roughly 400 kilograms of enriched uranium, much of which is buried under rubble from the bombings. While partially damaged, the stockpile remains militarily potent, so a new framework will need to establish a clear plan to secure and dispose of this material.

Negotiators face two core structural challenges: Iran will never agree to renounce its sovereign right to civilian uranium enrichment, and Israel will never fully accept that Iran has permanently abandoned any ambition to build a nuclear weapon. If Trump is serious about securing a nuclear deal to end the conflict and withdraw US naval forces from the Middle East, he will need to find creative diplomatic solutions to bridge these gaps.

Both China and the original JCPOA framework offer clear paths forward. As an original signatory to the 2015 deal and a country with deep existing economic, military, and political ties to Iran, China could lead a multinational consortium to manage Iran’s existing enriched uranium stockpile and oversee the operation of its civilian nuclear program. Beijing has no strategic interest in seeing Iran become a nuclear-armed state, a position that could allow it to win trust from Washington, European capitals, and even Jerusalem. Reports already indicate that China has been working behind the scenes to encourage a negotiated peace, and the upcoming summit between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on May 14-15 creates a unique opportunity for the two major powers to broker a breakthrough agreement.

European governments, which already hold decades of experience negotiating and implementing the original JCPOA, can contribute their institutional knowledge to the new talks, while the IAEA stands ready to resume its independent verification role.

Most analysts believe Iran would accept such a framework, particularly if it leads to phased relief from crippling Western sanctions and deeper economically beneficial trade and investment ties with China. The biggest unanswered question remains whether Trump will be willing to accept a deal that revives the core framework of the Obama-era agreement he once condemned, and walk away from the conflict with a limited political victory rather than pushing for total regime change.

As a fragile two-week ceasefire between Iran and the U.S. enters its final 48 hours ahead of a Wednesday evening expiration, Tehran remains undecided on whether to participate in a new round of peace negotiations scheduled this week in Islamabad, with top Iranian officials slamming the Trump administration for untrustworthy behavior and maximalist negotiating demands that derailed the previous talks.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei clarified Monday during a regular press briefing that no final decision has been reached on Iranian attendance at the proposed new talks. The earlier round of negotiations held in the Pakistani capital ended without any breakthrough to de-escalate the conflict that the Trump administration and its Israeli ally launched in late February.

Baghaei highlighted a stark contradiction between Washington’s public claims of diplomatic readiness and its recent aggressive actions, pointing specifically to a U.S. military operation over the weekend that seized an Iranian-flagged cargo vessel in the Gulf of Oman. Such moves, he argued, offer no indication of the U.S. being serious about pursuing a constructive diplomatic path.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed these criticisms in a social media post published Monday, calling out what he framed as contradictory and unconstructive signals coming from U.S. officials. Pezeshkian emphasized that upholding commitments is the foundational requirement for any meaningful dialogue, noting that Iran holds deep, history-rooted mistrust of the U.S. government stemming from decades of past aggression against the country. “They seek Iran’s surrender,” Pezeshkian wrote of Trump administration officials. “Iranians do not submit to force.”

Pezeshkian’s remarks came as U.S. President Donald Trump issued stark new threats to resume large-scale bombing operations if no peace deal is reached before the ceasefire expires. The ongoing conflict has already killed more than 3,300 Iranians and displaced millions of civilians. When asked what would happen if talks fail, Trump told PBS News: “Lots of bombs start going off.”

This threat followed an even more extreme warning from Trump: that if Iranian leaders reject his administration’s terms for ending the war, the U.S. will destroy every power plant and bridge across Iran. Legal experts have widely condemned these threats as violations of international law, which explicitly protects civilian infrastructure from intentional attack, noting that the threats themselves qualify as war crimes regardless of whether they are carried out.

Beyond the military standoff, the conflict has sparked growing internal friction within the Trump administration over skyrocketing U.S. gasoline prices. On Monday, Trump publicly contradicted his own Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fracking industry executive, who suggested over the weekend that U.S. gas prices might not drop below $3 per gallon until 2027.

Wright made the projection during a CNN interview Sunday, when asked when consumers could expect significant price relief after the national average jumped above $4 per gallon following the outbreak of the war. Responding to Wright’s comments in a Monday interview with The Hill, Trump called the energy secretary’s projection “totally wrong” and insisted gas prices would plummet immediately as soon as the conflict ends.

However, independent energy and economic analysts, as well as major reporting from The New York Times, contradict Trump’s optimistic claim. The Times reported Monday that the global economic impact of Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz — which has cut off roughly 20 percent of the world’s global oil supply — is only just beginning to hit global markets, and disruptions will persist for months or even years even if a peace deal is reached quickly.

East Asia is currently bearing the brunt of supply shortages caused by the strait’s closure, but the ripple effects are expected to spread across every major global economy if the waterway remains blocked. Even if a peace deal is signed immediately, the Times reports that the global economy will face months of canceled air travel, soaring food prices, paused factory production, delayed supply chains, and empty shelves for a wide range of consumer and critical goods, from plastic products and instant noodles to microchips, vaccines, medical equipment, and cosmetics. The outlet added that even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens fully tomorrow, it could take years for oil and gas production and shipping to rebound to pre-conflict levels.

Bob McNally, founder and president of energy consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, confirmed this assessment in comments to Newsweek published Monday. “It is likely we will feel the effects of energy disruptions through the end of the year,” McNally explained. “Even if the conflict and disruptions were to end today, the ripple effects would be felt for many months. Just restarting Gulf production and flows would take three to four months. Repairing damage to facilities could take longer.”

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, also warned that U.S. consumers face continued financial strain in the coming months. In a Sunday social media post, Zandi wrote: “It doesn’t look like gasoline prices will return to pre-war levels anytime soon. That’s even if the war ends soon, which looks iffy, to say the least. And this abstracts from what Americans will need to shell out for higher prices on everything from groceries to airfares in the coming weeks and months. The financial pain caused by the war and its fallout on consumer spending and the economy is set to intensify.”

Amid ongoing financial volatility spurred by the US-Israeli war on Iran, a top White House economic advisor has confirmed that Washington stands ready to offer financial support to the United Arab Emirates should the Gulf ally require economic stabilization. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett made the commitment in comments to CNBC on Monday, noting that the UAE has served as a critical partner in the regional military campaign.”The UAE has been an incredibly valuable ally throughout this effort, and I’m sure the treasury secretary will make every effort to help them out, should that be necessary,” Hassett stated. He also added that former President Donald Trump had characterized diplomatic efforts to end the conflict as moving forward at a promising pace.Hassett’s comments came in direct response to a Wall Street Journal report revealing that UAE Central Bank Governor Khaled Mohamed Balama privately raised the prospect of a US dollar currency-swap line with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve officials during a closed-door meeting the prior week. While Hassett noted that a currency-swap arrangement would likely not be necessary to stabilize the Emirati economy, he reaffirmed Washington’s willingness to extend support if conditions worsen.To contextualize the proposal, currency swaps are bilateral agreements between central banks that allow participating institutions to access foreign currency at more favorable rates during periods of market stress. For global central banks, access to US dollars via swaps is particularly critical, as the greenback remains the world’s primary reserve currency, used widely for international debt repayment and import purchases. The Emirati dirham has long been pegged to the US dollar at a fixed exchange rate, making stable access to greenbacks a core priority for Emirati monetary policy. Per the WSJ’s reporting, the UAE’s inquiry was framed as preliminary and precautionary, not an immediate request for aid.The remarks have already stirred internal backlash within pro-Trump conservative circles, with prominent right-wing commentator Steve Bannon lambasting the potential aid during an episode of his *War Room* podcast Monday. Bannon launched an angry tirade against the proposal, framing it as an unfair burden on working-class American citizens while wealthy Emirati elites and global influencers benefit from the arrangement. “What are you doing you stupid working American? Paying for it,” Bannon said. “You’re not in that club. You’re just a working stiff out there to defend these scum.”Behind the precautionary request lies a subtle signal from Abu Dhabi: if the US fails to buffer the UAE from the economic fallout of the war, the Gulf state could shift oil trading and other key international transactions away from the US dollar to the Chinese yuan or other alternative currencies. For decades, the UAE and other major Gulf oil producers have priced their crude exports exclusively in US dollars, creating the global petrodollar system that generates consistent demand for greenbacks and supports the dollar’s status as the world’s dominant reserve currency. Petrodollar revenues are routinely reinvested into US Treasury bonds, domestic stocks, and other dollar-denominated assets, cementing the currency’s global position.Some geopolitical analysts have warned that the war on Iran could accelerate a global shift away from the petrodollar system, as Gulf states increasingly distance themselves from Washington’s regional policy and Iran already encourages energy trade settled in yuan. Yet experts who spoke with Middle East Eye note that the US dollar will almost certainly remain the dominant currency for Gulf oil exports for the foreseeable future, even amid the instability caused by the ongoing conflict.The US has deployed currency swap lines as emergency economic lifelines multiple times in recent decades, most notably during the 2008 global financial crisis and the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, when the Federal Reserve extended access to the program to central banks across Europe, Latin America, and other regions. Even so, the UAE’s inquiry has caught many independent analysts off guard: the country is one of the wealthiest nations in the Middle East, with massive sovereign reserves anchored by its consistent oil export revenues. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the UAE’s largest sovereign wealth fund, holds approximately $1 trillion in global assets, while the country’s central bank holds an estimated $270 billion in foreign currency reserves.Brad Setser, a former US Treasury economist and current fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the UAE’s request “slightly strange” given the country’s substantial existing financial buffers. Setser added that the Trump administration is unlikely to approve the swap line request, arguing that it runs counter to the administration’s signature “America First” policy framework. “There isn’t anything obviously ‘America first’ about a financial lifeline to one of the richest oil sheikdoms (if not the richest) just so it doesn’t have to borrow in the market [or] sell assets,” Setser explained. At the same time, he acknowledged that the request highlights a core tension: “[it is] clear that parts of the UAE aren’t happy about being asked to absorb the full financial costs of Trump’s bombing campaign.”As the closest Gulf ally to Israel, the UAE has faced sustained retaliation from Iran, including thousands of ballistic missile and drone attacks targeting Emirati infrastructure. The ongoing conflict has severely damaged Dubai’s core luxury tourism sector, once one of the emirate’s largest economic drivers, and slowed critical oil export volumes to a fraction of pre-war levels.While some neighboring Gulf states have pushed for diplomatic negotiation to de-escalate tensions with Iran, the UAE has taken a firmly hawkish stance, publicly supporting the continuation of US military action. Analysts attribute this position to the UAE’s heavy dependence on the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic chokepoint through which nearly a fifth of global oil supplies pass each day, as well as elite opposition to allowing Iran to expand its regional influence across the Gulf.