标签： Asia

In a remarkable public denunciation, a distinguished Saudi academic has launched a blistering critique against the United Arab Emirates, accusing the Gulf neighbor of embracing Zionism and functioning as “Israel’s Trojan horse in the Arab world.” Dr. Ahmed bin Othman al-Tuwaijri, former dean at King Saud University and ex-member of the consultative Shura Council, articulated these charges in a provocative column published by Saudi newspaper Al Jazirah.

Dr. Tuwaijri contends that Abu Dhabi’s leadership, driven by “hatred and jealousy,” has deliberately pursued policies designed to undermine Saudi Arabia and establish Emirati regional dominance. The academic specifically targeted Mohammed bin Zayed, Abu Dhabi’s crown prince and a noted opponent of political Islam, alleging the UAE has engaged in “hostile plots under the guise of diplomacy” that threaten regional stability.

The critique outlines multiple theaters of alleged Emirati interference, presenting a comprehensive indictment of UAE foreign policy. In Yemen, Tuwaijri accuses Abu Dhabi of supporting separatist Southern Transitional Council factions that challenged the Saudi-backed government, triggering military confrontations between the Gulf allies. The article further charges the UAE with fragmenting Libya through financial and military support to eastern factions, spreading chaos in Sudan by arming the Rapid Support Forces, and undermining post-Arab Spring transitions in Tunisia.

Regarding North African affairs, the academic claims the UAE has leveraged its financial influence to dominate key sectors in Egypt while simultaneously supporting Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam project despite potential harm to Egyptian water security. The critique further alleges Emirati efforts to split Somalia and establish Israeli influence in the Horn of Africa to control the strategic Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The deteriorating relations between these traditional allies represent a significant geopolitical shift in the Gulf region. Tensions escalated notably following Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s November visit to Washington, where he reportedly lobbied against Emirati activities in Sudan. The rift has since expanded with Saudi Arabia courting Pakistan for military partnerships while the UAE strengthens ties with India, and diverging positions on Somaliland further highlight the growing divide between these former partners who once collaborated closely during the Qatar blockade.

The Pentagon has unveiled a transformative National Defense Strategy that fundamentally reorients U.S. military priorities toward hemispheric dominance while compelling American allies to assume greater responsibility for their own security. The 34-page document, released late Friday, represents the most significant shift in defense policy since 2022, explicitly criticizing European and Asian partners for their historical reliance on U.S. military subsidies.

The strategy framework emphatically declares an end to what it characterizes as decades of neglect toward American interests, opening with the stark assertion: ‘For too long, the U.S. Government neglected — even rejected — putting Americans and their concrete interests first.’ This philosophical foundation translates into concrete policy changes that will require allied nations to take primary responsibility for countering threats from Russia to North Korea.

Geopolitical tensions surrounding strategic assets emerged as a central theme, with the document specifically highlighting U.S. intentions to guarantee military and commercial access to the Panama Canal and Greenland. This focus follows President Trump’s recent confirmation of ongoing negotiations for ‘total access’ to Greenland through a framework agreement with NATO leadership, though Danish officials maintain that formal negotiations have not yet commenced.

The strategy markedly departs from previous administrations’ approach to China, no longer identifying the Asian power as America’s ‘pacing challenge’ but rather as an established regional force that requires deterrence rather than domination. Notably absent is any mention of security guarantees for Taiwan, contrasting sharply with the Biden administration’s 2022 strategy that explicitly supported the island’s asymmetric self-defense capabilities.

European allies received particularly direct messaging, with the document asserting that NATO members are ‘strongly positioned to take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense’ against Russia, which the strategy classifies as ‘a persistent but manageable threat.’ This assessment comes amid confirmed U.S. troop reductions along NATO’s eastern borders, raising concerns among European partners about potential security vulnerabilities.

The comprehensive strategy document reinforces the Trump administration’s ‘America First’ philosophy throughout, emphasizing bilateral relationships based on mutual interest rather than traditional alliance structures, while maintaining the Pentagon’s role in supporting—but not leading—regional security architectures worldwide.

The United States has issued a stark financial ultimatum to Iraq regarding the formation of its next government, according to confirmation from an Iraqi official to Middle East Eye. Washington has threatened to sever Baghdad’s access to its oil revenue reserves held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if Iranian-aligned paramilitary figures are incorporated into the new administration.

This financial pressure campaign emerges as political negotiations intensify following Iraq’s November parliamentary elections. The Financial Times initially reported the specific threat to cut off Iraq’s dollar deposit supply—a crucial mechanism that has existed since the 2003 U.S. invasion. Under this arrangement, Iraq’s oil export proceeds are stored in the U.S., with monthly shipments of hard currency airlifted to Baghdad, providing Washington with significant economic leverage.

The Trump administration has previously demonstrated willingness to utilize this financial weapon. During the 2020 crisis following the assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, when Baghdad threatened to expel U.S.-led coalition forces, American officials similarly threatened to restrict Iraq’s access to its dollar reserves.

Joshua Harris, the chargé d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, has personally delivered these warnings to Iraqi officials and influential Shia leaders. The absence of a formal ambassador—with Trump appointing Mark Savaya, a former legal cannabis dealer from Michigan, as special envoy—has placed Harris as the top-ranking State Department official in Iraq.

The tension escalated particularly after the election of Adnan Fayhan as first deputy speaker of parliament last month. Fayhan, a former member of the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) militia, represents the type of political figure Washington seeks to exclude. The U.S. embassy reportedly suspended meetings with officials who supported Fayhan’s election and provided Iraqi counterparts with a list of unacceptable MPs.

Despite these pressures, Iraq’s political landscape remains complex. Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani’s coalition emerged victorious in November’s elections but lacks sufficient seats to independently form a government. Meanwhile, the U.S. military presence has significantly diminished, with recent announcements of “full withdrawal” from Iraq’s military facilities excluding the Kurdish region, where approximately 1,500 troops remain stationed.

A dystopian cartoon titled “Gaza Beach 2030” by award-winning Dutch artist Peter de Wit portrays parents sunbathing on a Gazan beach while their toddler unearths human skulls from the sand. This haunting imagery now intersects with real-world geopolitical plans as Jared Kushner, former U.S. President Trump’s son-in-law and special envoy, unveiled a controversial vision for Gaza’s future at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Kushner’s proposal envisions a transformed Gaza Strip featuring gleaming skyscrapers, coastal tourist attractions, and commercial districts operating under “free market economy principles” modeled after Trump’s America. The presentation included AI-generated renderings depicting a cityscape resembling Gulf Arab states rather than traditional Palestinian architecture, complete with cultural inaccuracies such as Arabic text written in the wrong direction.

Analysts universally condemned the proposal as colonial capitalism exploiting tragedy. Daniel Levy, a British-Israeli analyst and former peace negotiator, characterized it as continuation of profit-seeking from genocide, noting that over 71,500 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict recognized as genocide by UN experts and human rights organizations.

Palestinian political analyst Abed Abou Shhadeh invoked Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine” to explain the phenomenon, stating: “They see the death of people as an opportunity to take their land, to take their apartments, and to take the rights over their land.” He predicted profiteers would include not only American and Israeli interests but also Arab businesspeople and wealthy Palestinians, while excluding the Palestinian people collectively.

Renowned British-Israeli academic Avi Shlaim called the plan “preposterous and obscene,” noting its “total denial of any Palestinian agency.” Critics highlighted the irony of Kushner promoting this vision while his private equity firm had received substantial investments from Gulf states including UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia after leaving the White House.

Practical implementation appears unlikely according to most analysts. Annelle Sheline, a former State Department official who resigned over the Gaza war, noted the prerequisite of Hamas’s complete disarmament would be improbable given Israel’s military failure to achieve this despite extensive operations. She warned Trump should remember American failures in Iraq and Afghanistan when considering forced transformations of foreign territories.

In a significant diplomatic development, Abu Dhabi has become the stage for high-level trilateral negotiations aimed at addressing the prolonged Ukraine conflict. UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan personally met with delegation leaders from the United States, Russia, and Ukraine on Friday, January 23, 2026, demonstrating the Emirates’ commitment to facilitating peaceful conflict resolution.

The high-stakes discussions brought together prominent figures including US presidential envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, alongside Russian military representative Igor Kostyukov and Ukrainian officials Kyrylo Budanov and Rustem Umerov. This gathering represents one of the most direct diplomatic engagements between the conflicting parties in recent years.

President Sheikh Mohamed articulated his earnest hope that the negotiations would yield successful outcomes capable of contributing to the termination of the years-long hostilities. He emphasized the UAE’s consistent foreign policy approach that prioritizes constructive dialogue and supports all initiatives aimed at advancing diplomatic solutions to international crises.

The UAE leader further reinforced his nation’s stance by affirming support for all peaceful endeavors seeking to resolve the Ukraine crisis in a manner that respects the interests of all involved parties while promoting global stability. The meeting was attended by senior UAE officials including Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and other prominent members of the royal family and government, underscoring the importance the Emirates places on these negotiations.

This diplomatic initiative positions the UAE as an increasingly influential neutral mediator in complex international disputes, building on its growing reputation as a hub for diplomatic engagement and conflict resolution efforts.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s unconventional approach to international relations reached new heights this week as his personal reactions to foreign leaders triggered dramatic policy shifts and diplomatic confrontations. The president’s mercurial temperament has become the central driver of U.S. foreign policy, fundamentally challenging the post-World War II international order.

In a series of consequential moves, Trump revoked Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s invitation to join his Board of Peace initiative following what he perceived as Canada’s increasingly assertive posture toward the United States. The organization, initially formed to maintain the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, has expanded into a potential rival to the United Nations, drawing skepticism from Western allies.

During his appearance at the World Economic Forum, Trump demonstrated his transactional approach by threatening tariffs against Switzerland after its leader allegedly “rubbed me the wrong way” during a phone conversation. Although he ultimately lowered the proposed tariffs, the incident highlighted how personal chemistry influences his economic decisions. Similarly, the president pressured Denmark to acquiesce to U.S. ambitions regarding Greenland with a stark ultimatum: “say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember.”

This pattern of behavior reflects Trump’s deliberate effort to dismantle the rules-based international system that has governed Western diplomacy for decades. His supporters view this approach as a necessary correction to what they consider an inefficient system overly focused on compromise. However, critics argue that replacing established norms with a personality-driven framework creates dangerous instability.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, returning from Davos, reported hearing concerns about a “new world order” among international leaders. She noted that traditional allies now question American reliability, with nations considering alternative partnerships due to uncertainty about U.S. intentions.

The administration’s maximalist strategy, described by former adviser Steve Bannon as continuing “until you meet resistance,” has encountered little opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, foreign leaders are increasingly vocal in their pushback.

Prime Minister Carney has emerged as a leading voice for middle powers seeking to counter American unpredictability. Speaking before Trump in Davos, Carney advocated for collective action among secondary nations, stating, “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” He proposed creating a “third path” based on legitimacy, integrity, and rules—a vision that drew Trump’s ire and prompted threats against Canada.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned Trump’s recent comments questioning NATO’s mutual defense commitments as “insulting and frankly appalling.” The criticism came despite NATO’s Article 5 being invoked only once—in defense of the United States following the 9/11 attacks.

Analysts worry that Trump’s tactics may cause lasting damage to American global standing while encouraging nations to strengthen ties with China. Former Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan observed that Chinese leadership views Trump’s conflicts with allies as beneficial to Beijing’s interests.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, who participated in a bipartisan delegation to Denmark, noted that Trump appears to respect only those nations that demonstrate toughness and resilience, while treating accommodating partners with disregard.

The president’s personal diplomacy has created a fundamental shift in how the United States engages with the world, replacing established protocols with a system where flattery, personal animus, and immediate gratification drive international decision-making.

The United Arab Emirates is poised to facilitate a critical diplomatic initiative by hosting two-day multilateral peace negotiations among the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. Scheduled for late January 2026, this strategic dialogue represents a significant development in international conflict resolution efforts regarding the ongoing Eastern European tensions.

According to regional diplomatic sources, the UAE’s selection as neutral territory underscores its growing influence in global affairs and its capacity to mediate between conflicting international powers. The Gulf nation’s established relationships with all involved parties position it uniquely to foster constructive dialogue where previous venues have faced challenges.

This diplomatic undertaking follows multiple previous attempts to establish sustainable communication channels between the conflicting nations. The extended duration of the talks suggests participants are preparing for substantive discussions beyond preliminary positioning, potentially addressing core security concerns and humanitarian considerations that have previously hindered progress.

International observers note the timing coincides with increasing global pressure for conflict de-escalation amid evolving geopolitical dynamics. The participation of both US and Russian representatives at the negotiating table, alongside Ukrainian delegates, indicates potential openness to exploring alternative frameworks for stability in the region.

The international community continues monitoring developments closely, recognizing that successful mediation could establish new precedents for conflict resolution in complex geopolitical environments while potentially reshaping regional power dynamics.