Since its establishment, the UAE has portrayed itself as a nation of moderation, built on placing pragmatism before ideology. As hostile media campaigns and regional repositioning tests their resolve, Emirati diplomacy has proven that a policy of positive neutrality and bridge-building is the most rational and sustainable choice.

The recent reshuffling of regional alliances has displayed a level of transience and opportunism before unseen in the region, trading state interests for passing fads. Sustainable alliance frameworks are built on stability and moderation, a lesson few outside the UAE have sought to champion.

If there is an axis in the region, it is the axis of stability and moderation led by the UAE. The UAE has strengthened the leadership of this axis by avoiding media brawls that have run rampant lately. The UAE has wisely chosen silence, continuing to focus on its record of development and technological progress and its political and diplomatic initiatives.

The concerning aspect of the current landscape is not the presence of divergent policies, which is bound to occur, but the return of an exclusionary discourse which clings to ideology and the past, spewing hatred against tolerance and openness. This reversion to defamation serves chaotic forces and reproduces environments conducive to transcontinental terrorism.

If there is one lesson from contemporary history, it is that playing the extremism card, even tactically, always ends with adverse consequences. Hence, the moderation approach sponsored by the UAE is not just a moral choice; it is a security and strategic necessity for the country and the region.  

Among the most ostentatious narratives currently plaguing the UAE is the claim of an Emirati-Israeli alliance, or as one extremist described it, the use of the UAE as a "dumb pawn ridden by Zionism," or a "Trojan horse" executing plans to divide Arab countries. This conspiracy is marketed by obscure voices, but pushed amplified by official media platforms.

It is known to everyone that the UAE, like six other Arab countries and 12 Islamic countries, led by Turkey and 164 countries, maintains diplomatic relations with Israel, but there is no room for inventing an imaginary Emirati-Israeli alliance aimed at spreading chaos in the region to threaten Saudi national security.

How can a country that has prioritized the prosperity and stability of the Arab national state be interested in fragmenting it? And how can a state that has contributed to regional stability be accused of working against it? The reality is that the UAE has made fighting extremism, supporting stability, and focusing on development pillars in its domestic and foreign policy. These positions are documented in its multiple regional roles.

Doubting the UAE's intentions regarding the security and stability of the region, specifically Saudi Arabia, is futile and ignores indisputable facts and events in recent history. The UAE has stood by Egypt through thick and thin to preserve its stability, just as it has stood with Saudi Arabia in more than one pivotal moment. During the Kuwait Liberation War in 1991, the UAE defended Saudi Arabia's northern borders. In 2011, the UAE was quick to support Bahrain's security and stability and defend Saudi Arabia's eastern borders. Similarly, in the Yemen War in 2015, the UAE responded to the call to defend the kingdom's southern borders. During the Arab Spring period, the UAE led the battle to counter terrorism and chaos forces across the Arab world. The history is undeniable.  

No sane person can believe that the UAE, which stood side by side with Saudi Arabia in multiple crises, seeks to undermine Saudi security and stability. The accusation is made in bad faith. Saudi security and stability are tied to UAE security and stability, and vice versa. The claim is neither logical nor supported. There is a fine line between claim and truth, between illusion and reality. Supporters of this narrative cross the line.

The UAE's supportive stances on Saudi security have not been tactical; they reflect a deep conviction that the security of the Arab Gulf states is indivisible. This Emirati stance is documented in the joint Gulf defense agreement, which stipulates that any aggression against a Gulf state is an aggression against the rest of the GCC states. So how can it be that the UAE is accused of aiming to destabilize the kingdom?

What would have happened if the UAE had left Saudi Arabia alone in the Yemen war while Houthi missiles targeting its cities landed at its borders? The UAE contributed with the heroes of southern Arabia in liberating 80% of Yemen's territory from Houthi control, directly serving the security of Saudi Arabia's southern borders at a great cost. Had southern Yemen remained under Houthi control or turned into a safe haven for terrorist organizations, it would have been a catastrophic scenario for Saudi security and stability. Is this support insufficient to prove Abu Dhabi's commitment to security?

As for Sudan, all allegations that the UAE funds or arms one side against another have been repeatedly and categorically denied by the UAE. In this context, it can be said that sending weapons and equipment to the Sudanese army, hijacked by dark forces, by Saudi Arabia and other countries prolongs the life of a senseless Sudanese war extended for over 1000 days. Six countries send arms to a Sudanese government that rejects truce and is responsible for prolonging the war in Sudan. These countries, not the UAE, are responsible for the war crimes committed by the Sudanese army against its people.  

Therefore, the Emirati-Saudi disagreement is not about threatening Saudi national security but about a climate of suspicion in Riyadh. The puzzle of Riyadh’s anger is bewildering.

Perhaps Riyadh's anger is an attempt to cover up failures that have beguiled the country in recent years. Whatever the reason, it is disgraceful to cover up failures by disseminating baseless accusations.

The Saudi disagreement with the UAE is not security-related as the massive propaganda machine promotes. Perhaps it is economic, reflecting an inability to compete with their attractive developmental model. Perhaps personal motivations are at play. Some remain trapped in a "subordinate and superior" mindset, with an "elder brother" complex who commands to be obeyed. The UAE surpassed the subordinate-superior phase and sees true partnership based on mutual respect and balanced interests.

There is no room in Emirati politics for a domination mindset, nor is there obedience to an elder brother who reconciles with extremists. The UAE does not accept an unequal bilateral relationship. It is either a partnership based on mutual respect and responsibility in parallel paths or none at all. Riyadh has its role, and the UAE has its role in the security of the Arab Gulf and regional stability. Riyadh wants Abu Dhabi to be a follower, which it will not be.

The independence of strategic and sovereign decision-making is an Emirati red line. The UAE does not compromise on its sovereign decision but does not seek conflict, rather cooperation and stability.

It did not build its reputation by spreading chaos. The country built it with balanced and measured diplomacy. The recently narratives about a "fragmentation axis" are a reflection of a troubled political imagination rather than a description of a known reality. Riyadh is no more concerned than Abu Dhabi about the security and stability of the Arab national state.   

In the end, noise and foam may sometimes rise, but foam quickly dissipates, and history does not record hollow cries but actions. The UAE is a nation of actions, with a rich record, and its foreign conduct affirms that it is a nation of moderation, stability, and a pillar of regional and global peace.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.