“Say, O You Who Spread Destruction”

As I See 

By Adel Al-Baz

1.
“They enter no land without corrupting it and humiliating its people—thus they always act.” Before contemplating the devastation and corruption left behind, many troubling questions arise: Why do they seek to build their own country while destroying others? Why do they turn every land they enter into ruins? Why Sudan this time—when Sudanese themselves have built, adorned, and enriched their land with love, knowledge, and expertise? What if they had invested their God-given wealth into Muslim countries, turning them into havens instead of sending their brothers into the hell of war? What have they gained? Nothing.

2.
Look at what they did in Syria. The UAE did not enter Syria out of love for the Syrian people, but because it viewed the revolution as an extension of political Islam—its primary enemy. It sought to curb Turkish influence in northern Syria and to prevent any revolutionary model that might inspire the region’s peoples. Instead, it rehabilitated a dictator, broke Arab consensus, and granted legitimacy for nothing in return. Ultimately, it achieved no political stability. When revolutionaries rose to uproot the Assad regime, it opposed them and continues to support the SDF, further fragmenting Syria while following Israeli footsteps and implementing their plans.

3.
Since 2014, the UAE has adopted General Khalifa Haftar’s project as its tool in Libya. It financed his forces with hundreds of millions of dollars, supplied weapons in violation of the UN arms embargo, provided Chinese-made Wing Loong drones, established undeclared airbases in eastern Libya, and operated joint command rooms with foreign officers. The objective was clear: crushing any democratic path and preventing the rise of civilian or Arab Spring–aligned forces.

When the UN-backed Government of National Accord was formed in 2016, the UAE opposed it, encouraged Haftar to reject its legitimacy, and supported his 2019 offensive on Tripoli—an assault that killed thousands, displaced hundreds of thousands, and devastated the capital’s infrastructure. Though the attack failed militarily, it destroyed what remained of the political process. The UAE also sought control over oil ports and export routes, using economic leverage for political influence as part of a greedy regional strategy.

4.
The UAE entered the Yemen war in 2015 under the banner of supporting legitimacy, but its intervention soon took a different course. Instead of building a strong national army, it formed parallel forces outside state authority, gradually weakening the legitimate government. In 2019, it backed the Southern Transitional Council’s violent takeover of Aden.

Its focus was not restoring the state from the Houthis, but controlling ports, islands, and strategic locations such as Aden, Socotra, and the western coast. Years later, the Houthis remain in Sana’a, the Yemeni state is weak and divided, and militias have become entrenched. The result: Yemen’s internal fragmentation under the guise of legitimacy. Today, Emirati-backed forces are being expelled from Hadramout—and soon from Aden—as southern Yemen moves toward liberation.

5.
Since the outbreak of war in Sudan in April 2023, the UAE has played a central role in tipping the balance in favor of the RSF militia. Abu Dhabi provided political, financial, and logistical support, facilitating the flow of weapons and mercenaries through regional networks spanning Libya, Chad, and the Central African Republic. This support enabled the militia to sustain the war despite its lack of popular backing or legitimacy.

Politically, the UAE worked to launder the militia’s image internationally, portraying it as a “political actor” rather than a force accused of widespread crimes, including Darfur massacres, mass rapes, and forced displacement. Through diplomatic and media tools, it promoted a counter-narrative blaming the army and easing pressure on the RSF.

Economically, the UAE has been linked to Sudan’s gold file, with numerous reports indicating that large quantities of gold controlled by the militia are smuggled through networks connected to Dubai, providing a key funding source for the war.

After more than two years, the outcome is clear: the Sudanese state has weakened, society has fragmented, crimes have multiplied, and no stability has been achieved. Emirati intervention neither ended the war nor protected civilians—it prolonged it and deepened its humanitarian and political costs, repeating the same pattern seen in Libya and Yemen.

6.
The UAE sought to transform itself from a small state into a regional power controlling ports, trade routes, maritime chokepoints, and political decision-making in weaker countries. Yet its gains are tactical, temporary, and costly—fragile influence tied to individuals rather than institutions, vulnerable to collapse at any moment.

In return, it has lost its global reputation, becoming associated with militias, war financing, human rights violations, and state destabilization. Its image as a “model state” of tolerance and development has eroded, replaced by associations with Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and secret prisons. It has accumulated hostility among regional peoples, civil forces, political elites, and even Western circles.

This is no longer merely a struggle for influence—it is a struggle soaked in blood: murdered children, violated women, and erased cities. What we see is a recurring pattern: backing militias, sabotaging states, then withdrawing without accountability.

7.
Thus, the UAE attempted to purchase influence through chaos—and gained fragile leverage while losing a reputation built over decades.
It gained militias—and lost peoples.
It gained temporary ports—and lost the image of a respected state.
It gained covert influence—and earned widespread resentment and a deeply tarnished image.