Why the UAE is Pivoting to Iran in the Shadow of a Closed Hormuz

Why the UAE is Pivoting to Iran in the Shadow of a Closed Hormuz

    Thursday, June 11, 2026   No comments

 The Caloric Reality

Four months into the ongoing regional conflict, the United Arab Emirates is facing a profound logistical nightmare. Following continued US strikes, Iran has shut the Strait of Hormuz once again, severing the maritime jugular of the Gulf. Initially, analysts spooked by the blockade—and the power-centered leaders of the UAE themselves—viewed the crisis almost exclusively through a hydrocarbon lens. The prevailing narrative was that the UAE could simply bypass the closure via its West-East pipeline, allowing tankers to load oil and gas from Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman, safely circumventing the strait.

But a harsh, undeniable reality has since set in: pipelines can transport crude, but they cannot transport calories. The basic fundamental of state survival is food, not oil. Consequently, the UAE is executing a dramatic geopolitical pivot, choosing to integrate with Iran’s new regional security framework rather than challenge it.

When the blockade began, the UAE’s immediate instinct was to lean on its energy infrastructure. The Emirates normally routes 51% of its crude through the Strait of Hormuz. The closure forced the state oil company, ADNOC, to slash output from 3.4 million barrels per day. In a bold move, the UAE officially left OPEC in May, signaling its intent to maximize production independently.

However, this strategic decoupling has proven largely hollow. What good is pumping record volumes of oil if you cannot physically ship it out of the country? While the UAE is now pouring emergency capital and round-the-clock labor into accelerating the West-East bypass pipeline—originally slated for completion in 2027—to move the full 3.4 million barrels per day to the Arabian Sea, leadership has realized this only solves half the equation. Oil revenues mean nothing if the domestic population is starving.

The Caloric Reality Check

The true vulnerability of the UAE lies in its food supply chain. Over 80% of the nation’s food imports traditionally pass through the Strait of Hormuz. A full, sustained blockade cripples these maritime food routes, pushing the Emirates to the brink of a severe food security crisis.

The symptoms are already visible on the ground. Major supermarket chains across the Emirates have hiked prices by 40% in a desperate bid to ration supplies and avoid empty shelves, a move that is actively fueling internal instability and public anxiety. Furthermore, Dubai’s status as a global logistics hub is in jeopardy. The city’s Jebel Ali mega-port is grinding to a halt, with compounding shipping delays and surging maritime insurance rates making everything from manufacturing inputs to retail imports economically unsustainable.

You cannot pump wheat, rice, or livestock through a subterranean tube. This stark reality has forced a complete recalibration of Emirati strategic thinking.

This crisis has laid bare the UAE’s inherent geographic limitations. Unlike its neighbor, the Sultanate of Oman, which boasts direct, unencumbered access to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean via the Musandam Peninsula and its southern coast, the UAE’s primary commercial and population centers are deeply tied to the Persian Gulf.

The UAE is realizing that it cannot out-geography its constraints. A nation that might have been better off with the geographic endowments of Oman is now forced to adapt to the hand it was dealt. Challenging Iran’s control over the chokepoint is no longer a viable option when the cost is national starvation.

The New Strategy: Integration Over Confrontation

Recognizing that military or economic defiance will only deepen the caloric deficit, the UAE is adopting a new, three-pronged strategy focused on damage limitation and diplomatic integration:

1. Playing Real Neutrality: The UAE is shifting its diplomatic posture to explicitly ban American or Israeli forces from using Emirati airbases for strikes on Iran. This clear non-aggression stance is designed to shield critical domestic infrastructure—most notably the Barakah nuclear plant—from retaliatory targeting. More importantly, it is the only viable diplomatic path for the UAE to gain regional stability and signal to Tehran that it is a partner, not a proxy, in Iran's emerging security framework.

2. Accelerating the Energy Bypass: While acknowledging its limits, the UAE is still rushing the West-East pipeline project. By getting it running early, the state hopes to at least secure its hydrocarbon revenue stream via Fujairah, ensuring the government retains the financial capital needed to fund emergency food imports and domestic agricultural overhauls.

3. A National Agrotechnology Sprint: To secure its long-term survival, the UAE is launching a heavily subsidized, wartime-style national initiative to scale up domestic food production. This includes massive investments in indoor vertical farming, advanced hydroponics, and expanded desalination plants. The ambitious, state-mandated goal is to achieve 50% domestic food self-sufficiency, reducing reliance on vulnerable maritime supply chains.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has served as a brutal stress test for the modern Gulf state. For decades, the UAE’s foreign policy was anchored by the belief that oil wealth could engineer its way out of any geopolitical bottleneck. The events of 2026 have shattered that illusion.

As supermarket shelves thin and Jebel Ali falls quiet, the UAE’s leadership has come to a singular, sobering conclusion: in the hierarchy of national survival, food security dictates foreign policy. By making nice with Iran and integrating into its security framework, the UAE is not surrendering its sovereignty; it is making a pragmatic, existential calculation to ensure its people are fed.

Iran Threatening Fees on Critical Subsea Cables in the Strait of Hormuz

Iran Threatening Fees on Critical Subsea Cables in the Strait of Hormuz

    Monday, May 11, 2026   No comments

 Iran Plays Its Digital Card

As the Trump administration weighs military escalation to force Tehran into a nuclear deal, Iran has revealed a potentially devastating countermove that targets the backbone of the global digital economy: the undersea internet cables transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

In a development that underscores the widening scope of the confrontation, Iranian state media reported today that Tehran is considering imposing licensing fees and royalties on foreign operators running subsea cables through its territorial waters. The move, if implemented, would weaponize Iran's geographic position to hold hostage nearly 30% of global data traffic and 90% of digital communications between Asia and Europe.

According to reports from IRGC-affiliated news outlets Tasnim and Fars, Iranian officials are framing the issue as a matter of sovereignty. Any cable laid on the seabed without explicit authorization constitutes "occupation of Iranian soil underwater," the outlets claimed, and must therefore be subject to licensing and fees.

The proposed framework would require foreign operators to pay per-meter infrastructure fees and licensing royalties to route cables through Iranian territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz. While the legal merits of such a claim remain contentious under international maritime law, the geopolitical leverage is undeniable.

Tehran is reportedly modeling its approach on Egypt's monetization of subsea cables transiting the Suez Canal corridor. Cairo currently earns between $250 million and $400 million annually from fees charged to cable operators using the strategic waterway. For Iran, facing crippling sanctions and a war economy, such revenue streams represent both a financial lifeline and a mechanism to assert control over a critical global chokepoint.

However, the implications extend far beyond revenue generation. The subsea cables in question—including the FALCON, GBI, and Gulf-TGN networks—are not merely internet conduits. They enable the bulk of financial transactions, cloud data services, and secure communications flowing between Europe and Asia via the Middle East.

The statistics are staggering:

• 17 submarine cables currently pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
• These cables carry nearly 30% of global data traffic.
• They handle 90% of all data flow between Asia and Europe.

Globally, 99% of intercontinental internet traffic is transmitted through undersea cable networks that support communications, finance, cloud systems, and military operations.

Unlike oil tankers, which can be rerouted (albeit at great cost), subsea cables are fixed infrastructure. They cannot be easily moved or replaced. Disruption or forced renegotiation of their status would send shockwaves through global financial markets, disrupt cloud computing services, and complicate military communications for nations dependent on these data corridors.

The timing of this disclosure is significant. As the Trump administration reportedly considers escalated military action to coerce Tehran into signing a nuclear deal, Iran is signaling that it possesses asymmetric tools that extend far beyond its missile arsenal or proxy networks.

Threatening the legal status of subsea cables achieves several strategic objectives for Tehran:

Economic Leverage: It creates a potential revenue stream while threatening to impose costs on the global economy, thereby increasing pressure on Western capitals to seek diplomatic off-ramps.

Deterrence: It signals that any military conflict would not be contained to conventional battlefields but would immediately impact the digital infrastructure underpinning the global economy.

Sovereignty Assertion: It reinforces Iran's narrative that it will not be bullied into surrendering its rights, extending that defiance from the nuclear realm to the digital and maritime domains.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal states have sovereignty over their territorial waters (up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline), but foreign vessels and cables generally enjoy rights of innocent passage. However, the legal regime regarding subsea cables in territorial waters is complex and less tested than in exclusive economic zones (EEZs) or the high seas.

Iran's argument that unauthorized cables constitute "occupation" pushes the boundaries of international law. Yet, in the realm of geopolitical coercion, legal precision often matters less than the ability to disrupt. Even the threat of legal harassment, licensing delays, or selective enforcement could deter investment in cable maintenance or repairs, gradually degrading the resilience of these critical networks.

For policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and Asian capitals, Iran's move highlights a vulnerability that has long been underestimated. The global digital economy rests on physical infrastructure concentrated in a few geographic chokepoints. The Strait of Hormuz, already critical for energy security, is now being framed by Tehran as equally vital for data security.

If the Trump administration proceeds with military escalation, it must now calculate not only the risks of regional war and oil price shocks but also the potential for immediate disruption to the internet backbone connecting East and West. Iran has effectively signaled that in a conflict, no domain—nuclear, conventional, or digital—is off-limits.

The disclosure of this "digital card" suggests that Tehran is preparing for a long game of asymmetric pressure. Whether this serves as a deterrent to war or a prelude to further escalation may well depend on how seriously the international community takes the threat to the cables lying silently on the seabed of the Hormuz Strait.

Pakistan’s Strategic Calculus in a Post-Hormuz World

Pakistan’s Strategic Calculus in a Post-Hormuz World

    Friday, May 08, 2026   No comments

The sudden closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the February 28, 2026, military campaign against Iran by the United States and Israel has triggered one of the most severe disruptions to global maritime trade in recent decades. However, for Pakistan, the blockade is not just a security or economic liability; it is a strategic inflection point. Rather than retreating into passive alignment, Islamabad has moved swiftly to transform a maritime crisis into a terrestrial opportunity. By operationalizing overland transit corridors to Iran, Pakistan is pursuing a calculated three-pronged strategy: elevating its regional diplomatic and economic clout, constraining India’s strategic alternatives, and forging a continuous trade artery linking China to Iran, with the long-term ambition of extending this corridor westward into the broader Eurasian network.

To understand Pakistan’s response, one must view the crisis through the lens of historical trade geography. For millennia, corridors like the Silk Road have dictated the flow of wealth, influence, and political alignment across continents. When sea lanes are disrupted, land routes regain their strategic premium. The Strait of Hormuz has long functioned as the modern equivalent of a maritime chokepoint, channeling a critical share of global energy and commercial shipping. Its closure has forced regional actors to reconsider over-reliance on vulnerable sea passages. Pakistan’s decision to pivot toward overland transit is rooted in this historical reality: control of land corridors translates directly into geopolitical leverage, economic relevance, and diplomatic indispensability.

Pakistan’s immediate response to the Hormuz blockade has been to position itself as the primary logistical lifeline for Iran. As of late April 2026, Islamabad has designated six new transit routes and formally cleared the passage of third-country goods to Iran through Pakistani territory. This move addresses a pressing bottleneck: more than 3,000 Iran-bound shipping containers have been stranded in Karachi since the imposition of the US-led maritime blockade. By converting these stranded maritime shipments into an overland pipeline, Pakistan transforms its ports and road networks into critical regional infrastructure. This operational shift elevates Islamabad from a peripheral actor to a central facilitator of Asian trade, granting it diplomatic leverage with Tehran, Beijing, and other regional stakeholders while generating domestic economic activity in logistics, rail, and customs administration.

Pakistan’s overland strategy also carries a clear counterweight to India’s longstanding regional ambitions. Since October 2017, New Delhi has developed the Chabahar Port corridor in southeastern Iran as a direct trade route to Afghanistan, explicitly designed to bypass Pakistani territory. This route has provided India with strategic access to Central Asia and diminished Pakistan’s geographic leverage over regional commerce. The Hormuz crisis, however, fundamentally alters the strategic calculus. With maritime routes disrupted and Iran under severe economic and logistical strain, the reliability and security of India’s Chabahar-dependent supply chains are compromised. Pakistan’s newly activated land corridors through Balochistan and Sindh offer a faster, more contiguous, and geographically integrated alternative for regional trade. By linking Iranian logistics directly to its own port infrastructure, Pakistan not only undermines India’s bypass strategy but also reasserts its indispensability in South Asian and Central Asian trade networks.

At the core of Pakistan’s post-Hormuz calculus is the ambition to seamlessly integrate the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) with Iranian transit infrastructure. CPEC, which links China’s Xinjiang region to the Arabian Sea via Gwadar and Karachi, has long been envisioned as a cornerstone of broader Eurasian connectivity. The current crisis accelerates the practical need to extend this corridor inland. By routing Chinese and third-country goods through Pakistan into Iran, Islamabad creates a continuous land-based trade artery stretching from East Asia to the Persian Gulf. From Iran, this network holds the structural potential to connect westward into Iraq, the Levant, and eventually European markets, effectively reviving and modernizing the western branches of historical trade routes. Such a corridor would reduce regional dependency on vulnerable maritime chokepoints while positioning Pakistan as the central node in a transcontinental supply chain.

This recalibration is not without geopolitical risk. Facilitating trade to Iran under a US-imposed blockade inevitably strains Pakistan’s relationship with Washington, which has historically leveraged financial and security partnerships to influence Islamabad’s foreign policy. However, Pakistan’s calculus appears to prioritize long-term strategic autonomy over short-term alignment. By framing its transit operations as humanitarian and economic necessities rather than overtly political maneuvers, Islamabad seeks to maintain diplomatic flexibility while advancing its regional integration agenda. The bet is clear: sustained transit revenues, infrastructure development, and elevated regional standing will ultimately outweigh temporary friction with Western partners.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has exposed the fragility of globalized maritime trade, but it has also revealed new pathways for regional realignment. For Pakistan, the crisis is a catalyst rather than a constraint. By transforming its territory into a vital overland conduit between China, Iran, and beyond, Islamabad aims to amplify its diplomatic clout, curtail India’s strategic alternatives, and lay the groundwork for a westward-expanding trade corridor. In doing so, Pakistan is not merely reacting to a blockade; it is actively reshaping the architecture of Eurasian commerce, leveraging geography, infrastructure, and transit diplomacy to secure its place in a post-Hormuz order.

US Central Command Statement: "U.S. Forces, Allies Conduct Joint Strikes in Yemen; Houthis respond

US Central Command Statement: "U.S. Forces, Allies Conduct Joint Strikes in Yemen; Houthis respond

    Monday, January 22, 2024   No comments

After re-listing Houthis as a terrorist entity, US government has signaled that its strikes in Yemen are going to gain some permanence, coining a new name for the operation:  “Operation Poseidon Archer”. Afterwards, the  US Central Command issued a statement, announcing that the "U.S. Forces, Allies Conduct Joint Strikes in Yemen."

The full statement from US Central Command:

As part of ongoing international efforts to respond to increased Houthi destabilizing and illegal activities in the region, on Jan. 22 at approximately 11:59 p.m. (Sanaa / Yemen time), U.S. Central Command forces alongside UK Armed Forces, and with the support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands, conducted strikes on 8 Houthi targets in Iranian-backed Houthi terrorist-controlled areas of Yemen. 

These strikes from this multilateral coalition targeted areas in Houthi-controlled Yemen used to attack international merchant vessels and U.S. Navy ships in the region. The targets included missile systems and launchers, air defense systems, radars, and deeply buried weapons storage facilities. 

These strikes are intended to degrade Houthi capability to continue their reckless and unlawful attacks on U.S. and U.K. ships as well as international commercial shipping in the Red Sea, Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, and the Gulf of Aden. These strikes are separate and distinct from the multinational freedom of navigation actions performed under Operation Prosperity Guardian."

The UK followed with its own statement:

UK Defense Security statement. Four British Eurofighter Typhoon fighters conducted strikes against Ansar Allah this evening.

____

Meanwhile, the Yemen government in Sanaa, responded to the new strikes with this statement, posted by Mohammed Albukhaiti. 

This reaction follows a detailed responce issued by the same Yemini official reacting to EU intent to join the US and UK in their war on Sanaa government. The full text of the statement is below.

A message from Mohammed Albukhaiti, senior member and spokesperson of Ansar Allah

My message to the European Union countries regarding their possible participation in a military mission in the Red Sea.

The exceptional state of stability and security that Europe experienced after World War II is a result of the moral values   that prevailed in its societies at the internal level.  However, this moral system began to weaken as a result of the participation of some European countries in the immoral wars that America fought outside its borders.  We are now seeing its effects in the rise of the extreme right and the war in Ukraine.

European societies must realize that moral and human values   are fixed and do not change according to the nationality and religion of a person, and their treatment of them with extreme selectivity that amounts to schizophrenia will expand the scope of wars in the world, which will expand to Europe.

There are genocidal crimes committed every day in Gaza, the majority of whose victims are women and children, in full view of the world, and all countries must take serious action to stop them.

Unfortunately, the movement of some countries with their fleets in support of the perpetrators of genocide and the silence of others is what prompted us to take unilateral military action to stop it, because we had no choice but to do so.

We only target ships linked to Israel, not with the aim of seizing them or sinking them, but with the aim of changing their course to increase the economic cost to Israel as a pressure card to stop its crimes in Gaza and allow the entry of food, medicine and fuel to its besieged residents. This is a legitimate act, especially since we are in a state of war with it.  If the crews of those ships had responded to the instructions of our naval forces, they would not have been detained or bombed.

The steadfastness of the Palestinian people and the military operations of Yemen and Hezbollah against Israel were sufficient to pressure it to stop its crimes, but the American and British support for it, which reached the point of launching an aggression against Yemen, created the conditions for it to continue committing more crimes and expanded the scope of the conflict.

Today there is a war between Yemen, which is struggling to stop the crimes of genocide, and America and Britain, which are fighting to support and protect the perpetrators. It is also clear that the Palestinian people are not ready to surrender, which means that the situation is heading towards escalation.

Instead of European Union countries moving to add more fuel to the fire, they should move seriously to stop the crimes of genocide in Gaza, and then we will stop all our military operations immediately and automatically.

The Palestinian people are being subjected to great injustice to the point of being deprived of the right to live on their land by force of arms. If another human group had been subjected to the injustice that the Palestinians are being subjected to, we would have moved to help them, regardless of their religion or color.

We are not advocates of war, but rather advocates of peace, and it is America and Britain that attacked us, whether in 2015 indirectly or today directly, and we advise the European Union countries not to participate in any aggression against Yemen.

Our keenness to achieve a just and comprehensive peace that guarantees the safety and dignity of all countries and peoples does not mean abandoning our duty to defend the oppressed, nor abandoning our right to self-defense, no matter the sacrifices it costs us. We are prepared to fight until the Day of Resurrection even if the whole world comes together against us."

 

Media Review: Underscoring the risks associated with attacking Yemen, European countries, including France, refused to support it

Media Review: Underscoring the risks associated with attacking Yemen, European countries, including France, refused to support it

    Friday, January 12, 2024   No comments

 Attack on Yemen might be the riskiest action taken by the US administration, and that risk is obvious. France and some other European powers refused to take part in it or even sign on the statement issued after the strike on Yemen that were carried out by the US and UK, and supported by a handful of other nation-states like Bahrain. In Yemen, on the other hand, Houthis government may have gained more support not only from the people living in the territories under its control, but even from territories still under the control of Saudi-backed government.

Some background for this emerging military confrontation between the US and the Sanaa government in Yemen: Houthis-run goverment in Yemen imposed a blockade on commercial ships that either belong to Israel or trading with Israel until the blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza and its war in Gaza are stopped. Although Houthis stated that no other ships will be denied transit, the US insisted that the actions taken by Yemen are threat to global commerce. It acted on this jsutification. After the strike, the Government of Sanaa said that it will retaliate and that it will continue to enforce the blockade until Gazans are allowed food and safety.

Now the aftermath of the attacks and the reaction of worl to it.

The British newspaper "The Telegraph" indicates that Paris refused to work jointly with its Western allies, and did not support the American and British air strikes against Yemen.

An unidentified French official told the British newspaper The Telegraph that Paris “fears that, by joining the US-led strikes, it will lose any influence it has in the talks to defuse tensions between Hezbollah and Israel.” France has focused much of its diplomacy in recent weeks on avoiding escalation in Lebanon.

According to The Telegraph newspaper, France did not sign a statement of support for the US and British air strikes against Yemen, after saying that it “will not participate in air strikes to protect maritime navigation in the Red Sea.”

 

On the other hand, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Korea and Bahrain signed a joint statement supporting the US-British strikes and warning against taking further measures.

 

The Dutch also provided logistical assistance during the strikes, but other major European powers, including France, Spain and Italy, did not provide military or political support.

 

On the other hand, France, along with Italy and Spain, refused to participate in the strikes, and avoided signing a statement supporting them.

 

According to The Telegraph newspaper, Emmanuel Macron's government refrained from joint action with its Western allies against Yemen, in contrast to what happened with it in recent years, in Libya and Syria, when its army participated in repelling ISIS attacks, according to its claim.

 

In turn, the joint commander of the French forces in the Red Sea region, Admiral Emmanuel Sallars, said yesterday, Thursday, that “Paris’ current mandate does not include striking Ansar Allah directly.”

 

The American "Bloomberg" agency reported, in a report, that US President Joe Biden is facing "his biggest test yet regarding his ability to avoid a broader war in the Middle East," in the wake of the American-British aggression against Yemen.

The British Sky News network reported on Friday that the American and British strikes are pushing more Yemenis to support Ansar Allah in Yemen.

According to the British Sky News correspondent, who spoke to people inside Yemen, and they told her how terrified they felt when the British and American missiles fell yesterday, the Yemenis view the United Kingdom and the United States as “igniting the war by supporting the Saudi-led coalition.” .

She pointed out that, after the recent British and American strikes, the Yemenis are increasing their support for Ansar Allah, and “Washington and London do not favor this matter at all.”

Spain refuses to participate in the “Guardian of Prosperity” coalition in the Red Sea

Spain refuses to participate in the “Guardian of Prosperity” coalition in the Red Sea

    Sunday, December 24, 2023   No comments

Spain announced that it will not participate in the international coalition to protect shipping traffic in the Red Sea from attacks by the Houthi group in Yemen, but it will not oppose participation with other European countries within the framework of a specific mission.

After several days of delay, the Spanish leftist government made clear, in a Defense Ministry statement published on Saturday evening, that it opposes expanding the mission of the European “Atalanta” operation, which has been combating piracy in the Indian Ocean since 2008.

The ministry noted that the recent resumption of piracy in the region "requires maximum investment" in this mission. She also stressed that "the nature and objectives of the Atlanta mission have nothing to do with what we aim to achieve in the Red Sea."

From this standpoint, the government of socialist Pedro Sanchez considered it “indispensable to establish a new, specific, dedicated mission” to protect commercial maritime traffic in the Red Sea.

The Ministry stressed that this special mission must have “its own scope of work, means and objectives determined by the competent bodies of the European Union,” adding that “Spain is in no way opposed to the establishment of this mission.”

In response to a question from Agence France-Presse on Sunday, the ministry spokesman explained that Spain will not participate in the current process. The ministry did not explain the reasons for this rejection, which was announced shortly after a phone call on Friday between US President Joe Biden and Sanchez.

The White House confirmed in a statement that the conversation focused specifically on "condemning the current attacks launched by the Houthis against commercial ships in the Red Sea," a topic that the Spanish government did not mention when it touched on this phone call.

Washington's maritime coalition will not affect Yemen operations

The official spokesman for Ansar Allah, Muhammad Abdel Salam, said that the Washington naval coalition that was announced yesterday will not affect the Yemeni operations, pointing, in this context, to the presence of American, French and British frigates and military bases on the other side of the Red Sea, which It could not prevent Yemen's operations supporting Gaza.

He stressed that "Washington's naval alliance in the Red Sea is to protect Israel, not to protect international waterways," noting that "it cannot be called an alliance. Rather, it is, in fact, a weak grouping, and dead before it was born."

Abdel Salam reiterated his assertion that “the international corridors bordering Yemen are safe, and there are no security or military problems.” Adding that what is being targeted are ships heading to Israel, or Israeli ships.”

 Abdel Salam pointed out that “this alliance does not include any country overlooking the Red Sea, and it comes, unfortunately, in accordance with an American desire to protect “Israel” and to give it the opportunity to continue committing massacres against the Palestinian people.”

 

He added: "If they were keen on peace and stability, they would not have opposed calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. This alliance cannot be acceptable or palatable, because its goal is the continuation of the Israeli aggression against Palestine."

Yemen said the blockade is a human action to stop the killing and starving of Palestinians; “the blockade imposed by Yemen will stop when the genocide in Gaza at the hands of Israeli Zionist occupation forces stops.”

Total bias

An opinion poll conducted by the NGO, Almustaqilla, on a sample of Arab people, the results of which were published at the end of last November, showed that only 7% of those polled believed that the United States’ role in the Israeli aggression was positive.

 20 years ago, the American invasion of Iraq damaged the reputation of the United States in the world.

 Munqith Dagher, an official at the Almustaqlila, comments that until recently, America “still represents this image of a country that embodies democracy, human rights, freedom of expression, and many values that befit the famous American dream.”

But the torrent of horrific scenes from Gaza, the massacres carried out by the occupation and the policy of collective punishment, “turned the situation upside down,” he added.

Dagher believes that this matter demonstrated to the Arabs "the United States' complete bias toward the Israelis and its lack ofrespect for human rights when it comes to the Palestinians."