The ambitions of Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of the Emirates, go beyond destroying Islamic organizations and are eager to make the Emirates another Israel in the Middle East.
This is what British writer David Hurst ended up in in his article entitled Mohammed bin Zayed's mission impossible on his Middle East Eye website.
The article says that the counter-revolution that bin Zayed launched when he toppled the late Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi in 2013 produced specific dictators: Muhammad bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi in Egypt, and Khalifa Haftar in Libya, all of whom mock free elections, and live like pharaohs, all of whom He owes him to either finance their rise to power, arm them, or direct them.
The writer continues to describe bin Zayed, saying that he is the mastermind of the coup in Egypt, and the main player in the civil war in Libya, and takes advantage of his country's ports to have a presence in the Horn of Africa, and pushed the Saudis to war in Yemen to promote the son of the late Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, and then give up On this strategy to encourage the southern separatists, he was instrumental in launching the blockade of Qatar, and presented an unknown Saudi prince (Muhammad bin Salman) to the Trump clan.
In addition, the author clearly sees - like everyone else - that the United States is collapsing as a leading power in the Middle East. He knows how to manipulate decisions in the White House, because he is able to read their ignorance, arrogance and personal greed and pours money directly into their pockets. He can play with skill in the chaos of real-time decision making in the Oval Office.
He aspires to dominate the Middle East
Therefore, it must have happened to him that he thought that the Middle East needed a new ruler. So why shouldn't he be? It is time, to get out of the shadows and to announce himself in broad daylight.
So what is the mission? Hurst asks. He answers that the article - which was written by the Emirati ambassador Yusef Al-Otaiba in the Israeli newspaper "Yediot Aharonot" in the Hebrew language - appears ostensibly to warn Israel that annexing more Israeli lands is a very distant bridge.
He denied that Al-Otaiba was interested in his article on the Palestinians, or on Arab opinion or the interests of Jordan. Rather, it became clear that what was written by a letter from liberal Jews in America to right-wing Jews in Israel, and the mastermind of this process is Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, according to a report in the network. Axios "of the media, and Caroline Glick, former adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, described Al-Otaiba's article as the brainchild of Saban.
The article continues, indicating that two paragraphs in Al-Otaiba’s letter reveal the mission, as the latter says, “With the presence of the most capable armies in the region, and common concerns about terrorism and aggression, and the deep and long relationship with the United States, the UAE and Israel can forge closer and more effective security cooperation.”
"As the two most advanced and diversified economies in the region, the expanded trade and financial ties between the UAE and Israel can accelerate growth and stability across the Middle East," Al-Otaiba added.
Its Arab allies marginalized
Hurst comments that the UAE does not claim in these two paragraphs that it has an army that is stronger than Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but also claims that it possesses the strongest and most diversified economy in the Arab world, adding that the UAE is in the mind of bin Zayed a "small Sparta" with great ambitions.
He says that the UAE, compared to its military power with Israel, is marginalizing its allies in the Saudi and Egyptian armies, even though this has little importance, as Bin Zayed wants to transform his country into another Israel. Both countries are small in size and population, and can serve Western interests. They also have common enemies from the Islamists, and they have a common strategy to control the region, and the two largest regional challenges for the UAE and Israel are Turkey and Iran, respectively.
Bin Zayed Project Challenges
On the regional level - Hurst continues - the UAE and Israel work side by side, and each covers the other's back, "but this does not mean that the project itself is stable or long-term." Israel may indeed find it useful to play on "I" bin Zayed to serve its own interests in keeping the Palestinians under permanent occupation.
But Israel's interests come first, and there can only be one policeman in the region, and Israel does not intend to share this role with an Arab with ideas higher than his size.
The second problem with bin Zayed's mission is his Sunni Arab allies. When the Saudis and the Egyptian military elites realize that their national and commercial interests suffer, they will begin to look at the fireworks adventures of the UAE Crown Prince differently.
The interests of Egypt and Saudi Arabia
For example, the maritime agreement - which Turkey signed with the Libyan government (the National Accord) supported by the United Nations - gives Egypt greater access to marine resources than would have been in a deal with Cyprus and Greece, however Cairo condemned the Turkish-Libyan deal as illegal.
Likewise, the writer notes that the partition of the Emirates by Yemen, its occupation of Socotra Island, and its southern separatist support in Aden, is not in Riyadh’s interest mainly to maintain security along its southern borders, and install a puppet regime in Sanaa.
History lessons
Hurst says that history does not bode well for the bin Zayed project. Every Arab country that has worked with or recognized Israel is today weaker and more divided as a result. This applies to Egypt and Jordan, who find that peace with Israel is a false dawn.
The economic miracle, according to the writer, which the two countries promised at that time, was never fulfilled, the Palestinian conflict is difficult, and historical Palestine is weaker and smaller than ever.
The Fatah movement that recognized Israel is asking itself the same questions: Why did we do this in Oslo? What is the use of it? This debate brings them closer to their competitors, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).
Failed alliance
Hearst adds that the rapprochement between Israel and the Emirates is doomed to failure, that it is the work of individuals and not peoples, and that the conspiracies and tricks of Bin Zayed are his personal property and not the property of his nation, and the Arab street strongly opposes recognition of Israel until a just solution is found for the Palestinians, a solution related to their land and their right to return. The Bin Zayed project, Israel, as the author adds it, is a poison to the region, and Israel does not reconcile with its neighbors, but rather deals with them as stupid.
The article concludes by emphasizing that bin Zayed's mission is impossible, and the sooner his Arab allies see this, they can prevent a second decade of regional war.