Dr Mohammed Abdullah Al-Ali*

For any objective observer, it was not difficult to exclude the UAE and the other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries from Iran’s target list in any military confrontation with the United States and Israel, despite repeated threats from the Iranian leadership. This is for the simple reason that it would be both irrational and counterproductive for Iranian missiles and drones to strike neighbouring countries and peoples at a time when the Tehran regime would be expected to seek regional and international sympathy in such a conflict.

However, as Iran’s strategic compass drifted and flawed, and weak calculations pushed the regime to attack peaceful neighbours, the UAE remained steady and cohesive, firmly preserving the strength of the principles on which it was founded, foremost among them its commitment to international legitimacy and the rule of law. This is reflected in shaping a clear narrative that counters the “ideologised” discourse of the Iranian aggressor, who, from the first hours of the war, sought to portray the UAE and the rest of the GCC countries as parties to the conflict by claiming that they were either participating in, or at least facilitating, US military operations.

In light of the seriousness of Iran’s brutal aggression against the GCC countries and the profound geopolitical consequences it entails, it was necessary for the UAE’s consistent narrative to clearly emerge to refute the aggressor’s claims and expose its false rhetoric, relying on clarity and logic, as well as the persuasive strength of sound argument and the legacy of credibility that has long characterised the UAE’s positions and its wise leadership.

In the current war, “narratives” have become an important arena for unpacking positions and revealing facts, as weak “emotional” claims unsupported by evidence are increasingly difficult to promote. The issue is not about influencing the positions of peoples and world public opinion, important as that may be, but rather related to the legitimacy of positions and the legality of the motives upon which countries base their strategies in responding to crises imposed upon them.

Conflicts certainly do not end solely with the sound of bombs and cannons, but also through the strength of arguments and the firmness of positions. The UAE has combined the efficiency and readiness of its defence systems in protecting its territory and sovereignty, intercepting 378 ballistic missiles, 15 cruise missiles, and 1,835 drones since the start of the Iranian attacks up to the time of writing this article, with a clear and transparent “narrative” that has contributed to winning the battle of narratives, which is one of the most important arenas of modern conflict.

This was clearly demonstrated during the UN Security Council session that adopted Resolution 2817 by a majority of 13 votes. The resolution affirms the Council’s support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, and strongly condemns the heinous attacks launched by Iran against their territories, calling for their immediate cessation.

The issue here is not limited to the condemnation itself, but to framing positions within the scope of international legitimacy, which is of critical importance for the UAE as a country fully committed to upholding the standards of legitimacy and international law. The resolution effectively isolates Iranian conduct and thus represents a legal gain that the attacked Gulf countries may rely on later, particularly as they have chosen, for the time being, not to engage in the war and instead limit their actions to defending their sovereignty while reserving the right to respond at the appropriate time.

It was, therefore, necessary to establish that Iran violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of these countries in accordance with international legitimacy principles, specifically Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

This also helps in building a broader legal case by mobilising the international community to stand against Iran’s aggression and classify it as a threat to international peace and security under the UN Security Council resolution.

Consequently, Iranian actions fall within the mandate of the UN Security Council, which is entrusted with maintaining international peace and security and may, if necessary, resort to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, granting the Council the authority to take measures against any country whose conduct is deemed a threat to international peace and security.

During UN Security Council discussions, the UAE narrative also played an important role in building a clear international consensus, despite the presence of another draft resolution that did not explicitly condemn Iranian aggression and merely called for an immediate ceasefire.

The UAE narrative was not limited to the legal dimension, but also highlighted defensive technological superiority by demonstrating the high readiness of missile and drone defence systems, reflecting the results of sustained national investment in strong deterrence capabilities that protect the country’s development gains at a critical moment of testing.

The UAE narrative also successfully linked the country’s security to broader international interests and global energy security, gaining wide international understanding and support. As a result, attempts by the Iranian regime to weaken the UAE’s resolve or exhaust it militarily and economically have failed.

On the contrary, the outcome reflects a story of resilience and achievement for the UAE Armed Forces and leadership, which stands firm to protect the nation and its people in the face of the brutal Iranian aggression.

*The writer is the CEO of TRENDS Research & Advisory