“Hey everyone, I want to show you something today that I think is genuinely important to properly understand the Middle East. And the clip I’m going to show you was important not just because of what is said, but because of who is saying it and where they’re saying it. This is an interview that aired on ABC News. Jonathan Karl interviews Reem Al Hashimi. She is the United Arab Emirates Minister of State for international cooperation. That’s a cabinet level position and she’s speaking on American mainstream television. That’s American mainstream media, the kind of outlet that usually would would look at the Middle East through the lens of Israeli aggression or Palestinian suffering or something like that.
Um but here you have a senior official from a Muslim Arab Gulf state explaining in plain English the problem with Iran, not just for Israel, not just for the United States, but for the entire region with a clarity and confidence that I find remarkable. So let’s watch this. It’s about 6 minutes. Pay close attention because after the clip I want to break down several things that she says that are enormously significant including uh some including a few things that she says that that point to uh what Americans and Westerners, I should say, miss about their understanding of all of these Muslim states. Okay, very important stuff.
Now to our next guest. The United Arab Emirates has taken more direct attacks from Iran than any other country including Israel in the last 70 weeks of war. Joining us now is the UAE’s Minister of State for international cooperation, Reem Al Hashimi. Thank you so much uh Madam Secretary for being here. Um So I I want to get to that point. You have been attacked by Iran more than any other country. We put together the numbers here. Um this is from the uh uh the Gulf Research Center and it shows Look at the numbers. Uh I mean you know that well. You have been attacked more than Israel. More than Saudi Arabia. Why has Iran aimed so much firepower at the UAE?
“Thank you very much John for having me. Well, in 40 days we were attacked a little over 2,800 with 2,800 missiles and drones. And for us it’s very clear that they chose it to go down this path because we are everything that they’re not. We’re a model of economic prosperity. We have 200 nationalities that live there. We have religions and cultures from all around the world. We used our oil wealth to build an economic powerhouse. They used their wealth for nuclear programs that are nefarious for missiles, drones, proxies, etc. So whereas we tried to become and have become an international global responsible player, they are pariah states and they wanted to break our model, but they underestimated our resolve.”
So how can we be certain that at the end of this process, even if there is a deal, that Iran will retain the power to continue once again to attack the UAE?
“So we’re very hesitant because we believe that it’s really important that as part of the neighborhood that one is in, that you have neighbors that don’t just launch these types of weapons against fellow neighbors. I don’t know if you’re aware, John, but over 90% of all of their targets was actually civilian infrastructure.”
So you’re saying they’re after US bases or US facilities?
“No, no, no. And not even the US bases where nothing was actually targeted from the US bases, right? So they really wanted to break what it was that made the UAE special, which is this incredible model of prosperity and then a tolerance. Now what we’re looking at moving forward is how do you live with the reality of geography in a neighborhood that still holds it upholds not just international law, but also how are we going to be able to deal with a team uh in the IRGC that doesn’t have such hostile intentions towards us?”
So what do you make of the process for these talks with Iran about? Do you think there’s going to be a deal? Do you think it’s…
“Well, eventually there’s going to have to be one, but it has to be a good deal, right? Because there’s no point in kicking the can down the road when we’re just going to end up where we started maybe even with a more emboldened regime that wants to continue to threaten its neighborhood. So for our perspective, we do want to have peace in our region, but it can’t be a bad peace. It can’t be a peace where it doesn’t address the root causes, which is Iran dealing with proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas and Houthis, having a nefarious missile and drone program, a nuclear enrichment program, being able to recognize the straits. I mean that I think is a really serious um tool that the Iranians have taken forward, which is to hurt cities from Des Moines to Delhi uh in spiking up fuel prices, in spiking up food prices. They don’t have the right to do that. And that’s why what the president has put forward, which is to not allow that to take over the straits, is actually really important moving forward.”
And you I mean that they’re your neighbors. Are you a hawk in this war in the beginning? You you wanted a negotiated agreement in the beginning. Do you think that the Iranians, as the regime now says, can be trusted to keep commitments even if they come to another agreement?
“Look, trust is earned, right? Uh what we’ve seen so far has been an appeal demonstration of a law of possibility. So the onus is really on them to demonstrate that they are not going to be going forward in a way that the trajectory has been so far. But trust is earned, John, and we are we are not fools. We’ve seen them even even before February 28th when this started, a couple of weeks before it, one of our senior ministers was in Tehran talking through how are we going to be able to deal with, as I said, the realities of geography. Uh right now we’re going to have to really step up in a significant way for us to be able to believe what they say again.”
President Trump has said that there has been regime change in Iran. I mean obviously it’s the leaders still lobby. Other leaders are still. You don’t think we can regime change Iran?
“I know personalities have changed, right? You have different characters that are currently in place. But how does that change the character of the revolutionary guard? That’s yet to see. Doesn’t seem very hopeful though right now.”
And let me ask you also about this threat that he’s made to take out every bridge, every power plant if there isn’t an agreement. Are you concerned about that?
“We believe that maximum pressure is what actually takes you forward dealing with the revolutionary guard. Whether it’s military, whether it’s economic pressure, which is why that piece is going to be critical now that they weaponized the straits, the tolling of vessels, the fact that they are able to have another avenue for revenue source. Those are all things that need to be tackled. Although I think you don’t want to hurt the Iranian people. That’s very important to mention. But at the same time it’s the revolutionary guard that has taken forward a military stance and a posture not against the US and Israel alone, but against the very neighborhood that they operate in through the Gulf states.”
All right, uh Madam Minister, I thank you very much for being here. All right, there we go. Let’s take this down. Okay. So let’s first talk about Let’s talk about what we just heard here. First, her opening answer. Iran attacked the UAE more than anyone else. Did you see those numbers? More than twice the number of drones and missiles fired at Israel were fired at the UAE. I I don’t think people have their heads around this. They think of this so much as Iran attacking Israel. And yeah, I I spent a lot of time in bomb shelters. My family did. More than twice more than twice the amount of missiles and drones were fired at the UAE than Israel.
Because in her words, quote, “we are everything they’re not.” I want to think about that for a moment because it’s not just a good line. It’s it’s actually kind of a a thesis for the trajectory both politically and culturally that the UAE is on currently. She’s saying that the UAE model with 200 nationalities, with religious coexistence, with oil wealth invested in building rather than destroying is itself a threat to the Iranian regime’s ideology. They attack us because we’re everything they are not. Iran didn’t attack the UAE primarily because of military targets. Over 90% of the targets, she said, were civilian infrastructure. They were attacking hotels. They were trying to break the UAE.
They were trying to say to the world, prosperity, tolerance, Western alignment, moderating Islam, all of this in a in a Muslim country cannot stand. They despise the UAE. They see the UAE as a major threat. And here’s why that matters for understanding the the bigger picture. I I’ve talked on this channel before about how the UAE is fundamentally different from from the other from the other Sunni Arab states in the area. Okay, it’s not Saudi Arabia, a smaller Saudi Arabia. We we tend to think of the UAE and Saudi Arabia as part of the same group of states, but it’s not exactly right. We’ll get to that more in a bit.
But the UAE has made a genuine civilizational choice. And Iran’s attack on the UAE, it’s it’s over 2,800 attacks on the UAE were a direct response to that choice. Iran wasn’t firing thousands and of missiles and drones at the UAE because of a military provocation. They were firing at it because its existence is a reputation of the Iranian model. That’s what she meant when she said, “We’re everything they’re not.”
Second, notice what she says about a deal. This was huge. She says, quote, “Eventually there’s going to have to be one, but it has to be a good deal.” And then she lists what that means. It has to address the proxies, and she mentions by name Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis. It has to address the missile and drone program. It has to address nuclear enrichment. And it has to address the weaponization of the Strait of Hormuz. What she just laid out is basically the Israeli position, almost word for word. And here you have a senior UAE cabinet minister saying it on ABC News. This is huge because for years the Western framework for an Iran deal was always focused on the nuclear.
People think that’s what this war is about. The Iranians wanted to keep it nuclear only. And here’s the UAE, a country that was publicly calling for de-escalation for before the conflict. They didn’t want there to be a war, now saying, “No, dealing with the nuclear alone is not enough. Missiles are at center stage. Proxies, dealing with the proxy issue is at center stage. It’s all on the table.” That’s a massive That was a massive statement from her.
Third, and this is the thing I really want you to notice. Her answer on the question of regime change. When he asked her, you know, Trump says there’s been regime change cuz it’s different people, has there been regime change? Now, her answer is precise, but it’s also very revealing. She says, “Personalities have changed, but has the character of the Revolutionary Guard changed? That’s yet to be seen.” She’s drawing a distinction that almost no Western analyst makes carefully enough. The question isn’t who’s formally in charge. Oh, these are different people. These aren’t the same people. That’s not regime change.
The question is whether the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard, has changed because the IRGC is the Iranian regime. It controls the missiles. It runs the proxies. It manages the nuclear program. Swapping out the people at the top for another doesn’t mean anything. If the IRGC’s character, mission, and command structure, personnel are there, and that’s who you’re dealing with, and that’s who is still there. This is exactly the danger of a premature deal. You get a new face. The West declares victory. They say, you know, Trump says, “This is regime change. We accomplished regime change. It’s a new regime.” The sanctions come off, and 6 months later the IRGC is rebuilding, rearming, or 6 months later, or 6 years later, and targeting the UAE again, suppressing their people.
She knows this. She’s in the neighborhood. And she’s saying it as clearly as she can without burning too many bridges diplomatically cuz she’s really criticizing Trump here. All right, for saying, “Oh, it’s been regime change.” No, it has not.
Okay, fourth point. She brings up the issue of maximum pressure. All right, she explicitly endorses maximum pressure. He asked about bombing bridges and civilian infrastructure, and she kind of agreed that it would be a good thing without saying that explicitly. She just said that she endorses maximum pressure, both military and economic. She mentions the weapons the weaponization of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran as a critical piece that needs to be tackled. And she says that we don’t want to hurt the Iranian people, and she means it because the UAE has consistently distinguished between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people.
The UAE has a significant Iranian diaspora living there. Iranian money has flowed through Dubai for decades. The UAE knows the Iranian people are victims of the regime. But she makes it clear, maximum pressure on the IRGC is the path forward, not a rushed deal, not a premature deal, not a deal that in her words kicks the can down the road. This is amazing to hear from from a from a minister from a cabinet minister in a Gulf state, in a Muslim state in the Gulf.
Okay, now let’s pull back the camera. I want to give you some big picture. I talked about the Saudis earlier. Um and that’s going to come up here. This woman is a Muslim Arab government minister. She’s sitting on American television, and she’s making more or less the case that Israel and the United States have been making about Iran for 20 years. Okay, and there’s no hedging in this interview. You see that. Usually we get this kind of like sort of hedged talk out of these out of these Arab states. But this was not hedged at all. And when you listen to her talk, you can get a picture of what the Abraham Accords were always pointing toward.
The Abraham Accords were not just a piece of paper. They were a convergence of interest and worldview between the Israel, the United States, and a few Arab states that have chosen modernity and Western alignment over is over Islamic ideology and Iranian-backed chaos. And here’s the key. This is why I made the video really, is for this point. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are not in the same camp. They align on many things, and geopolitically they operate uh in cooperation a fair amount. We see that a lot, and we talk about them as a unit or as a or as partners, but the UAE and Saudi Arabia are very different, and and we see this we see this even in some very hot political situations, like for example in Yemen, the militias that they the factions that they back in the Yemeni civil war are different factions.
They’re on opposite sides of this. Because the Saudis are backing a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned faction, and the UAE is backing a secular faction that wants Yemen to be a secular democratic state. So, this is a contrast that’s worth spelling out because because Western media lumps Saudi Arabia and UAE together. So, I want to drill down on it a bit more. Saudi Arabia has been playing both sides, publicly condemning Iran while privately maneuvering to protect the regime from being toppled at times. Um They would We saw a report yesterday that the Iranian foreign minister had a talk with his counterpart in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are throughout the years, not only on the Iran issue, on many issues.
They’re constantly switching sides, playing both sides. And they’re particularly worried. I believe they are particularly worried about the Iranian regime falling. Because a free and pro-Western Iran would undermine Saudi Arabia’s own strategic position. The Saudis know that if Iran becomes a pro-Western democracy that has open trade relations and cooperation with the West, with their highly educated uh more cosmopolitan population, which Iran has, a more secular, more pro-Western, more educated population, certainly than Saudi Arabia, and if that and and it’s the only country in the region that in terms of geographical size rivals Saudi Arabia, so their own strategic importance to the West would diminish I mean, diminish is an understatement. It would collapse almost overnight.
So, I believe that the Saudis want the Iranian regime weakened, but they are terrified of the Iranian regime going away completely. The UAE has no such conflict of interest. The UAE wants this situation resolved. They would love to see the regime gone permanently. They’re willing to say so out loud on ABC News. But the differences go deeper than Iran policy. I mentioned the Yemen situation before, but there’s more to it. Saudi Arabia talks a moderate game. We So, we think of them as one of the moderate Muslim states. They talk about being pro-Western. But Saudi Arabia remains one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to persecution of Christians.
That’s according to Open Doors International, a Christian organization that monitors persecution of Christians. Saudi Arabia outlaws churches. It outlawed It outlaws It outlaws any public practice of any non-Muslim faith. And and more and more. I mean, they really persecute the Christian population there. They’re one of the worst. And that tells you something fundamental about the character of Saudi Arabia and where its real commitments lie. The UAE, by contrast, is genuinely multi-religious. The minister just told you, 200 nationalities, religions, and cultures from around the world, and it’s not just a PR line. This is real. There are functioning churches in Abu Dhabi. The government built a an interfaith uh campus with a with a synagogue, a mosque, and a church.
There’s a Hindu temple there. There’s a Right? You have Jews go there comfortably and and and and worship. That reality is inconceivable in Saudi Arabia. And then there’s the Muslim Brotherhood issue. Right? Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have formally formally banned the Muslim Brotherhood, but the UAE’s opposition is is is consistent and it’s deep. They’re opposed to them. They oppose all of their all of their branches around the world. They they work against them worldwide. I just mentioned the Yemen situation. The UAE nearly went to war with Qatar over Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood. For the UAE, this isn’t a political calculation. Right? It it it it goes beyond politics. It’s a long-term comprehensive strategic vision for where they want to be as a society.
It’s an existential rejection of the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, the ideology that produced Hamas, Al-Qaeda, ISIS. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with that same ideological tradition is far more complicated. They don’t want the Muslim Brotherhood undermining their regime, but they’re steeped in the Wahhabi tradition, which is quite radical, and they and and they like I said, they persecute uh other religions, and it’s it’s much more of a of a of a pragmatic banning of the Muslim Brotherhood than an ideologically committed one. So, when you watch this minister from the UAE speak in this interview, understand that she’s not just a diplomat delivering talking points. She’s She’s sharing with us. She’s representing a a state that has made genuine civilizational choices and is actually a price for it in the form of thousands of missiles and drones.
Now, one more thing. She mentioned that a senior UAE minister was in Tehran shortly before the war broke out talking through how to manage, quote, “the realities of geography.” The UAE tried diplomacy here. They tried engagement with the regime. And then Iran fired thousands of missiles and drones at them anyway. So, when she says, “Trust is earned. We’re not fools.” It’s not diplomatic language only. It’s It’s uh it’s reflective of a of a government a state that did everything right, and they still got attacked. And now they are apparently done pretending that the IRGC is a manageable neighbor. That’s the message that she shared, and it deserves to be heard. Um I hope you found this this video interesting and helpful. All right, thanks for watching. God bless.
