PNN – The final analysis of the costly emergency withdrawal of Emirati forces from the Yemen scene, from the perspective of “Structural Realism” theories, signifies the forced redefinition of the power hierarchy within the Arabian Peninsula’s security subsystem.
The UAE’s interventionist strategy in Yemen, which began in 2015, with a clear deviation from the goals of the Arab coalition, focused on the systematic destruction of the National Army and its replacement with militant groups. Abu Dhabi, by arming the Southern Transitional Council (STC), sought to create a security belt to control strategic ports and key islands to solidify its hegemony in the Bab-el-Mandeb. According to Yemeni sources, this approach was designed not for stability, but precisely for the collapse of state structures and to facilitate separatist plans; a program rooted in the UAE’s aggressive foreign policy over the past decade which aimed to turn southern Yemen into its own base of influence, but has now become the country’s Achilles heel. However, in the following analysis, we will examine the reasons for the UAE’s withdrawal from Yemen in the face of Saudi Arabia’s actions.
Riyadh’s Temporary Victory over Abu Dhabi
Forces affiliated with the Saudi-backed government were eventually able, with Riyadh’s military-political support, to push back the Southern Transitional Council forces in “Hadramawt” and temporarily assume control over the affairs of this region. Over the past month, Abu Dhabi, in line with the geopolitical demands of the Zionist regime, supported the movement of southern separatist forces towards the two important eastern Yemeni provinces of Hadramawt and Al-Mahra.
Just hours after this new development, the Saudis first negotiated with the National Salvation Government in Sana’a, and after reaching an agreement with the “Northerners,” on several occasions placed the bombing of Southern Transitional Council military assets in the port of Al-Mukalla on the agenda. The peak of this tension could be considered the Saudi 24-hour ultimatum for ending the UAE’s military mission in Yemen, followed by the (at least apparent) surrender of the UAE to Saudi demands. Now, the central question for external observers and international affairs experts is whether the rivalry between Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed has once again entered a phase of hostility, or whether this tension can be managed by these two members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the UAE’s military and logistical movements in Yemen has been very sharp, decisive, and military. After the UAE Ministry of Defense announced the end of its counter-terrorism teams’ mission and rapid political developments such as the cancellation of the mutual defense agreement by Rashad al-Alimi occurred, the Saudi-led Arab coalition took direct military action.
The coalition announced it had targeted equipment and military vehicles transferred from the UAE’s port of Fujairah to the port of Al-Mukalla in Yemen in airstrikes, indicating the depth of the rift and tension between the two former allies. Simultaneously, on the diplomatic front, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, emphasizing that its national security is a “red line,” issued a serious warning that it would respond decisively to any threats on its southern borders. Riyadh also accused the UAE of inciting Southern Transitional Council forces to carry out military operations in the eastern provinces of Yemen (Hadramawt and Al-Mahra); an accusation that indicates Saudi Arabia’s deep concern over Emirati influence in strategically important areas bordering it and attempts to change the balance of power in southern Yemen, although Abu Dhabi has denied these accusations.
Changing the Power Equation in the Arabian Peninsula
In recent days, with the announcement of the end of the UAE’s mission in Yemen, although ostensibly a direct consequence of the bombing of arms shipments in Al-Mukalla port and the decisive ultimatum from the Yemeni government, a deeper analysis indicates fundamental changes in the power equations of the Arabian Peninsula. Utilizing “Regional Studies Theories,” especially the concept of the “Regional Security Complex,” Abu Dhabi’s behavior is considered not merely a military decision, but an inevitable reaction to systemic structural pressures. The expansion of the UAE’s proxy influence into the strategic depth of Hadramawt and Al-Mahra upset the balance of power in a way that Saudi Arabia perceived as an existential threat to its national security. Riyadh’s harsh reaction showed that the cost of maintaining regional influence for Abu Dhabi had outweighed its benefits.
Thus, this retreat can be seen as a form of “soft balancing” to prevent tactical competition from turning into strategic hostility at the regional level. This event has left the Southern Transitional Council facing a sudden power vacuum and a lack of protective umbrella, proving that within the Gulf security subsystem, pursuing projects that conflict with the interests of the hegemonic player is unstable and doomed to adjustment.
Latest Field Developments
On the other hand, recent field reports have revealed the heavy costs of this ambition; the registration of 232 dead and wounded among UAE-affiliated forces during clashes in Hadramawt and Al-Mahra indicates the collapse of their defensive lines against Saudi-backed forces. The loss of important bases such as “Al-Khash’ah” and “Seiyun” and the high number of missing persons proves that Abu Dhabi’s “militia-ization” project has failed in the face of Riyadh’s changed strategy. These heavy human losses are a direct result of the UAE’s doctrine, which assumed that injecting money and weapons would allow it to dominate Yemen’s complex fabric, but is now only witnessing the sacrifice of its own proxy forces. Ultimately, these losses led to major changes in UAE policies.