Abdulla M Alhamed@AMB_Alhamed
The problem with some countries in the region is not that they fail to see the danger, but that they see it and then hesitate, understand it and then bargain over it, recognize its source and then choose to avoid naming it. For this reason, the region has not stumbled only because of its obvious enemies, but also because of the ambiguity of some who are presumed to stand on the side of stability, while in reality they open the door to chaos whenever they perceive a temporary interest or fleeting gain.
Over the years, the same pattern has repeated itself: extremist forces, subversive projects, and transnational militias emerge-only for some to justify them, appease them, or recycle them politically and in the media, as though terrorism could become a respectable partner if circumstances change.
Those who support the Sudanese army when weapons become entangled with chaos, who accommodate the Houthis despite their record of undermining the state, who allow Islamist groups to find a way back whenever memory fades, who normalize the Popular Mobilization Forces as if they were a natural reality, and who appease the Iranian regime despite its project of infiltration and destabilization—such actors have no right to speak of security and stability. Those who embrace the causes of destruction cannot later claim to be seeking construction.
This is not political skill; it is political bankruptcy. A state that fails to clearly distinguish between those who build and those who destroy, between those who protect society and those who feed on its fragmentation, is merely postponing an explosion, not preventing it. Anyone who blurs the line between friend and foe, or attempts to stand in the grey zone between them, often ends up serving the enemy while believing they are maneuvering cleverly.
In contrast, the United Arab Emirates has chosen a different path. It has not ridden the waves, nor shifted its positions with changing regional moods, nor traded in ambiguity. It set matters straight early on, clearly identifying who is a friend and who is an adversary. It has not confused pragmatism with concession, openness with naïveté, or dialogue with legitimizing the logic of chaos. This is why it has built a strong, modern, and cohesive state, while simultaneously forging partnerships and relations with the world-because it understands that genuine openness does not come at the expense of core principles, and that partnership does not mean leniency toward those who undermine stability.
What is painful is that some who benefited from this approach-who benefited from the UAE’s positions, its support, and its commitment to stability-did not demonstrate the same stance when the UAE came under attack. In times of prosperity, words were abundant; in moments of testing, people disappeared. When clarity was required, there was silence, hesitation, or weak positions that neither honor relationships, repay goodwill, nor demonstrate loyalty. Here, the truth reveals itself plainly: not everyone who shakes your hand is a friend, and not everyone who praises you in calm will stand by you in the storm.
More dangerous still, this failure does not merely confuse positions; it attempts to cloak itself in a media cover of falsehoods, distortion, and the inversion of facts. When some parties fail to justify their contradictions, they resort to demonizing the state that is clear-because its consistency exposes them. The UAE did not unsettle them by making mistakes, but by not falling into theirs. It did not trouble them by changing its compass, but by maintaining it while they faltered between one narrative and another, one ally and another, and between enemies who suddenly become friends when standards collapse.
The result is before us: a grey path, a confused discourse, questionable relationships, and media falsehoods-followed by hollow talk of development and progress. The truth is that progress is not born from the womb of chaos, does not grow upon the justification of terrorism, and is not built by those who abandon their allies in times of hardship. Those who lack the courage to name the danger will lack the ability to confront it. Those who do not know their enemy will not know how to protect their homeland. And those who equate builders with destroyers have no place in any respectable vision for the future.
This is why the UAE remains clearer in vision, firmer in stance, and more honest with itself and its surroundings than others-because it has not bargained over defining the enemy, has not compromised its security for the sake of appeasement, and has not allowed terrorism to return in a new guise. As for those who continue to oscillate between ambiguity, bargaining, and betrayal, they will not shape the region’s future; they will remain part of its crisis, no matter how much they invest in justification or amplify the noise.
