To enter a war zone is to defeat the entire purpose of a place like Dubai.
Jeffrey Sachs, one of America's most prominent economists, has warned the United Arab Emirates that its deepening alignment with the United States and Israel through the Abraham Accords may have transformed Dubai and Abu Dhabi from symbols of prosperity into targets of war. Speaking as the UAE prepares to potentially become the first Gulf nation to enter the conflict with Iran directly, Sachs invokes a timeless paradox of alliance politics: that proximity to power does not guarantee protection, and may instead invite destruction. His warning asks a civilization built on openness and commerce to reckon with what it risks by choosing sides in a conflict that does not distinguish between military installations and resort hotels.
- The UAE is actively preparing to join US-led military operations against Iran, including efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a move that would make it the first Persian Gulf nation to enter the conflict directly.
- Iran has issued a formal warning to all West Asian nations: allow American forces to use your territory against us, and face the consequences — a threat that hangs directly over Emirati soil.
- Sachs argues that Dubai and Abu Dhabi, designed as global hubs of tourism and finance rather than fortified military zones, are uniquely and catastrophically exposed if the UAE becomes a belligerent.
- The UAE is pushing for a UN Security Council resolution to authorize military action in the Strait of Hormuz, though Russia and China could block it — leaving Emirati officials prepared to act regardless.
- The economist's warning lands as the UAE doubles down, pledging both military cooperation and trillions in economic investment to Washington, a posture Sachs calls a compounding miscalculation with potentially irreversible consequences.
Jeffrey Sachs has issued a stark warning to the United Arab Emirates: the gleaming cities of Dubai and Abu Dhabi could be destroyed if the country continues its trajectory toward direct involvement in the escalating conflict with Iran. Speaking to ANI, Sachs described the UAE's alignment with the United States and Israel through the Abraham Accords as a catastrophic strategic error — one that mistakes the appearance of security for the real thing.
The heart of his argument is architectural and geographic. Dubai and Abu Dhabi were built to attract wealth, tourism, and global investment — not to absorb missile strikes. Sachs invoked Henry Kissinger's grim observation that being an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but being a friend is fatal. The Gulf states, he argued, wagered that American military presence would shield them from consequences. That wager, he said, is failing.
The warning arrives as the UAE moves toward direct military participation in the conflict. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Emirates is exploring ways to help the US and its allies forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a third of the world's seaborne oil passes. The UAE is even pushing for a UN Security Council resolution authorizing such action — and has signaled it will support military operations even without one. Its assets are real: F-16 jets, surveillance drones, American-made munitions, and a deep-water port near the Strait's entrance.
Iran has responded with clarity. On March 20, its Foreign Ministry formally warned all West Asian nations to deny the United States use of military bases on their territory, threatening consequences for any country that facilitates strikes on Iranian targets. The warning was directed at precisely the role the UAE is now preparing to play.
Sachs sees the UAE walking into this trap with full awareness. The Abraham Accords promised security through alignment with Washington and Tel Aviv. His warning is that they may have instead placed a target on two of the world's most recognizable cities — and that the time to reconsider is running out.
Jeffrey Sachs, one of America's most prominent economists, has delivered a blunt warning to the United Arab Emirates: the glittering cities of Dubai and Abu Dhabi could be obliterated if the country wades deeper into the escalating conflict with Iran. Speaking to the news agency ANI, Sachs characterized the UAE's strategic alignment with the United States and Israel through the Abraham Accords as a catastrophic miscalculation—one that trades the country's fundamental purpose for a false sense of security.
The core of Sachs's argument rests on a simple geographic and architectural reality. Dubai and Abu Dhabi exist as playgrounds for wealth and tourism, not as fortified military installations. They are places designed to attract visitors, to host investment, to function as global financial hubs. To voluntarily enter a war zone, Sachs contends, is to destroy the very reason these cities exist. "These are resort areas. These are tourist destinations. These are not fortified missile defence areas," he said. The UAE, he suggested, walked into this predicament with full awareness and continues to compound the error by doubling down on its commitments to Washington and Tel Aviv.
Sachs invoked Henry Kissinger's famous aphorism: to be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. The Gulf states, he argued, made a fundamental bet that American military protection would allow them to act with impunity. They believed the presence of US military facilities on their soil would shield them from consequences. This, Sachs said plainly, is a miscalculation. The UAE government announced just days before his remarks that it would join the US-led effort against Iran, even as it pledged to continue funneling trillions of dollars into the American economy. Sachs's message was direct: stop doubling down on a losing proposition. Protect yourself. Understand the actual situation.
The timing of Sachs's warning coincides with a significant shift in UAE policy. According to reporting by The Wall Street Journal, the Emirates is actively preparing to join the conflict directly, making it potentially the first Persian Gulf nation to do so. The UAE is exploring ways to help the United States and its allies forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which roughly a third of the world's seaborne oil passes. The country is even pushing for a United Nations Security Council resolution that would authorize such military action, though Russia and China could block it. Even without UN approval, Emirati officials told the Journal, the UAE stands ready to support military operations, including mine clearance and other forms of assistance.
The UAE possesses real military assets that would make it a valuable partner in such an effort. It operates F-16 fighter jets supplied by the United States, surveillance drones, and stockpiles of American-made bombs and short-range missiles. It has a deep-water port at Jebel Ali and sits close to the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. These capabilities could serve as operational bases for US-led missions. Bilal Saab, a former Pentagon adviser on Middle Eastern affairs, noted that direct UAE involvement would signal Arab backing for the war and expand operational options against Iran.
But Iran has made clear what it sees as the cost of such involvement. On March 20, Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a formal warning to all West Asian nations, demanding they prevent the United States from using military bases on their territory for strikes against Iran. The ministry characterized these bases as the root cause of the current crisis and warned that countries hosting them could face consequences if those facilities were used in attacks on Iranian targets. The warning was unambiguous: complicity in American military operations would not go unanswered.
This is the trap Sachs sees the UAE walking into with eyes open. The country has bet its security, its prosperity, and its future on American protection. It has aligned itself publicly with Israel at a moment of profound regional tension. It is now preparing to take direct military action in a conflict that could easily reach back across the Gulf and strike at the very heart of what makes the Emirates economically valuable. The economist's warning amounts to this: the Abraham Accords promised safety through alignment. Instead, they may have simply painted a target on two of the world's most recognizable cities.
Notable Quotes
Dubai and Abu Dhabi could be blown up if the UAE gets into the war. These are resort areas, not fortified missile defence areas.— Jeffrey Sachs, economist
To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.— Henry Kissinger, quoted by Jeffrey Sachs
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Sachs think Dubai and Abu Dhabi are uniquely vulnerable compared to, say, military installations elsewhere in the region?
Because they're not military installations at all. They're built to attract tourists and capital. A missile strike on a military base is a military problem. A missile strike on the Burj Khalifa is a catastrophe for the entire global economy and the UAE's identity.
But doesn't the UAE already host US military bases? Aren't they already in the crosshairs?
Yes, but there's a difference between hosting bases and actively joining the war. Hosting is passive; joining is active. Iran can argue hosting is forced on them. Once the UAE starts firing missiles at Iranian targets, it becomes a combatant, not just a host.
The UAE seems to think UN approval would change the calculation. Why would that matter?
Because it would give the operation international legitimacy and potentially bring in other countries—European and Asian nations that are currently hesitant. But Sachs's point is that legitimacy doesn't stop missiles. A UN resolution doesn't make Dubai less flammable.
What's the actual leverage the UAE thinks it has?
Its geography, its ports, its air force, its missiles. It's offering to be the operational hub for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. It's valuable. But Sachs is saying that value only matters if the city survives to collect it.
Is Sachs saying the UAE should just abandon its American alliance?
Not exactly. He's saying the UAE made a strategic choice based on a false assumption—that American protection is absolute. He's saying that assumption is naive, and the cost of testing it is too high.
What does Iran actually want from the UAE?
For the UAE to stay out. To not allow US bases to be used for strikes. To remain neutral or at least not actively hostile. Iran is drawing a line: if you help attack us, we will respond.