The Middle East has always been a region woven with complex alliances, rivalries, and power plays. But few would have anticipated the secret wishes of two of the region’s most influential powers — Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — during one of the most volatile conflicts to erupt in recent times: the Israel-Iran war. New information, emerging from diplomatic corridors and insider accounts, reveals stunning details about where the silent sympathies of these Gulf giants truly lay.
It’s a story of power, survival, regional dominance, and quiet backroom dealings that paint a very different picture from the official stances both nations maintained in public.
A Region on the Edge of a Larger Conflict
When tensions between Israel and Iran escalated into open hostilities, the world watched with bated breath. The conflict threatened to spiral into a full-blown regional war, with neighboring nations at risk of being dragged into a fight none of them could afford. While the official position from both Saudi Arabia and the UAE was one of cautious neutrality, behind the scenes, calculations were being made.
Every move was strategic. Every alliance — spoken or unspoken — had the potential to reshape the Middle East’s power dynamics for years, if not decades, to come.
Public Statements vs Private Interests
Officially, both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi called for calm and diplomacy. Publicly, leaders condemned the violence and urged both sides to step back from the brink. But as is often the case in the geopolitics of the Middle East, what was said openly told only half the story.
In private, security officials and foreign policy advisers from both nations reportedly held intense deliberations. The priority for both Saudi Arabia and the UAE was clear: safeguard their economic ambitions, maintain internal stability, and prevent Iran from gaining any strategic upper hand in the region.
The Unspoken Threat from Iran
For years, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have viewed Iran as a destabilizing force. From its support for armed groups across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, to its ambitions for regional hegemony, Iran’s actions have consistently alarmed its Gulf neighbors.
The recent conflict with Israel, therefore, wasn’t seen in isolation. It was viewed through the lens of long-term security concerns, where a weakened Iran would translate into reduced threats against Gulf territories, energy infrastructures, and maritime routes — all critical for both nations’ future.
Why Backing Israel Made Strategic Sense
While neither nation would openly admit it, quietly rooting for an Israeli victory served multiple purposes for Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
First, it would serve to diminish Iran’s influence over its regional proxies. Groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, heavily reliant on Iranian support, would face setbacks if Iran itself were preoccupied or weakened.
Second, an Israeli victory — or at least a decisive blow against Iran’s military capabilities — would restore deterrence against Tehran’s increasingly bold regional behavior. This was crucial for the Gulf nations, particularly after a string of incidents where Iranian-backed militias targeted oil facilities, tankers, and civilian infrastructure.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it would open avenues for the Gulf nations to deepen their security and economic ties with the West, especially the United States, positioning themselves as indispensable allies in maintaining regional order.
The Abraham Accords Factor
Another critical element to consider is the Abraham Accords, the U.S.-brokered agreement that saw the UAE and several other Arab nations normalize relations with Israel. While Saudi Arabia has yet to formally join the accords, warming ties between Riyadh and Tel Aviv have been an open secret.
A favorable outcome for Israel in the conflict would solidify the strategic rationale behind the accords, proving to hesitant parties in the region that engagement with Israel was not just politically viable, but also strategically beneficial.
It’s also worth noting that stronger Israeli deterrence against Iran could indirectly serve Saudi and Emirati interests, reducing their own defense burdens and limiting the potential for direct confrontation.
Internal Discussions Behind Closed Doors
Insiders familiar with diplomatic conversations reveal that senior security officials from both nations engaged in confidential discussions about the possible outcomes of the war.
There were genuine fears about Iran’s retaliation capabilities. Ballistic missiles, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks targeting energy infrastructure, airports, and financial systems in the Gulf were seen as likely if the conflict widened.
However, despite these concerns, there was a quiet, pragmatic consensus: a strategic setback for Iran — even if it came through Israeli action — would ultimately serve the long-term interests of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Balancing Act: Public Neutrality, Private Calculations
Of course, openly supporting Israel would be politically explosive. Both nations host large populations deeply sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and wary of Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank.
The leadership in both countries, therefore, had to walk a delicate tightrope — maintaining a public posture of neutrality and calls for peace while making private strategic calculations that leaned heavily towards seeing Iran’s military and proxy capabilities curtailed.
It’s a classic example of the region’s double game — where public diplomacy often masks private intent, and national interests quietly override ideological alignments.
A Shifting Regional Landscape
The conflict has also accelerated a broader shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics, where traditional animosities and alliances are being redefined based on pragmatic national interests rather than old slogans.
The UAE’s deepening ties with Israel, through technology, security, and trade partnerships, are emblematic of this shift. Saudi Arabia, too, while moving slower, has been gradually opening informal channels of cooperation.
Both nations recognize that containing Iran’s regional ambitions is a mutual strategic imperative — and if that containment comes at the hands of Israel, so be it.
What This Means for Future Conflicts
The revelations about Saudi and Emirati preferences during the Israel-Iran war are more than just gossip from diplomatic backrooms. They signify a changing order in the region, where old foes find common ground and new, unlikely alliances emerge.
It also suggests that in future conflicts, the Gulf nations may be more willing to quietly support outcomes that serve their security and economic interests, even if those outcomes challenge traditional narratives.
The Human Element Behind Political Calculations
While geopolitical chess moves often make for dramatic headlines, it’s important to remember the human consequences of these decisions.
Thousands of innocent civilians bore the brunt of the Israel-Iran conflict — in Tehran, Tel Aviv, Damascus, and Baghdad. Families were displaced, lives lost, and futures destroyed.
Yet, as with most power games, those at the top focus on the bigger picture — securing influence, power, and survival in a region where the rules are constantly being rewritten.
The leaders of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, while pragmatic and forward-looking, are also products of a political culture where realpolitik often overrides sentiment. Their quiet support for an Israeli victory, driven by cold strategic logic, reflects the harsh realities of Middle Eastern power politics.
The Bigger Picture: Regional Stability Above All Else
At the heart of their calculations was a desire for long-term regional stability — at least the kind of stability that aligns with their national interests.
A weakened Iran would mean fewer threats to their cities, oil fields, and infrastructure. It would allow them to continue their ambitious economic diversification plans — Vision 2030 for Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s Vision 2071 — without the constant shadow of conflict.
It would also give them greater leverage in negotiations with global powers, positioning themselves as essential players in maintaining peace and security in a volatile region.
What Happens Next?
As the dust settles from the conflict and both Israel and Iran count their losses and victories, the Gulf nations will quietly reassess their strategies.
Officially, they will continue to advocate for peace, diplomacy, and regional cooperation. Unofficially, they will double down on measures to contain Iranian influence, deepen security collaborations with Israel and the West, and fortify their own defense capabilities.
The Israel-Iran war may be over for now, but the power games it unleashed are far from finished. And if there’s one lesson to be drawn from the shocking revelations about Saudi and Emirati sympathies, it’s that in the Middle East, what you see is rarely what you get.
In a region where yesterday’s enemies can become tomorrow’s allies, and public statements often hide private ambitions, the only certainty is uncertainty itself.
Conclusion: A New Era of Realpolitik
The recent conflict has laid bare the undercurrents shaping the future of the Middle East. The quiet support from Saudi Arabia and the UAE for an Israeli victory marks a definitive shift towards a new era of realpolitik — one where survival, strategy, and national interest trump old rivalries and ideological alliances.
For ordinary people across the region, the hope remains that these power plays eventually lead to a more stable, prosperous, and peaceful Middle East. But as history has often shown, peace in this part of the world is rarely gifted — it’s negotiated, fought for, and built upon a foundation of hard, sometimes uncomfortable choices.
And for now, it seems, the Gulf’s power players have made theirs.
Do follow UAE Stories on Instagram
UAE Central Bank Fines Bank Dh3.5m, Halts New Accounts Over Sharia, AML Breaches
