A recent disappearance of Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan instantly caused speculation about his death
In Russia there is a saying that people repeat with a knowing smile and a serious meaning behind it: the East is a delicate matter. It is not a decorative cliché. It is a practical warning about how power works in places where reputation, ritual, family balance, and perception can matter as much as formal institutions. In the Middle East, the smallest details often carry an outsized political charge, not because they are decisive by themselves, but because they can be read, amplified, and weaponized by those who want to influence the course of events.
A recent episode around the UAE shows this mechanism in real time. After Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s planned visit to Abu Dhabi was postponed, the public explanation briefly pointed to a health issue involving the UAE president, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, commonly known as MBZ. The wording then shifted, online traces were removed, and the information space was left with a familiar gap. In most parts of the world, such gaps are annoying but manageable. In the Gulf, they can become combustible, because the public and the elite alike understand what continuity at the top represents.
Into that gap came the kind of narrative that is tailor-made for disruption. Rumors about the death of MBZ began circulating, pushed not as cautious speculation but as confident confirmation from accounts that offered little more than repetition. It is hard to imagine a clearer example of how disinformation is designed to function. The goal is not to prove a claim in court, or even to convince everyone. The goal is to create a fog thick enough that important actors begin to hesitate. In systems where the leader is the ultimate arbiter, the senior figure in a ruling family, and the central node that connects security structures, economic priorities, and diplomatic commitments, uncertainty becomes a brake. It slows decisions, delays negotiations, complicates investment signals, and encourages outsiders to pause while they wait for clarity that may never arrive.
That is why the most damaging rumors are those that introduce a leadership question into an otherwise functioning state. Even a false claim can impose real costs when it forces officials to divert attention from policy to reassurance, when it pushes partners into risk calculations, and when it tempts rivals to test boundaries. This is especially relevant in the UAE, where political stability is not only a matter of governance but also a matter of federation and consensus. The UAE was built as a union of emirates, an alliance of rulers and communities bound together by a shared interest in security, prosperity, and continuity. Its strength comes from cohesion, from the sense that internal balance is managed, not performed for the public.
Disinformation that targets the leader therefore aims at something deeper than a single person. It aims at the cohesion that makes the federation durable. It tries to provoke the most dangerous kind of uncertainty: the suspicion that the internal equilibrium is about to change, and that every actor should start positioning for a transition. That is why these campaigns rarely stop at the headline rumor about death or incapacity. They quickly evolve into succession talk and insinuations about intra-family rivalry. The story becomes less about what happened and more about who might benefit, who might be sidelined, who might rise, and who might retaliate. In other words, it becomes an invitation to factional thinking.
In this context, unreliable sources began to pull Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan into the narrative. He is MBZ’s brother and a highly influential figure whose portfolio is commonly associated with security and strategic coordination. The details of his role are not the point for the operators of disinformation. The point is that he is prominent enough to sound plausible to outsiders and opaque enough that outsiders cannot easily verify internal dynamics. That combination is ideal for rumor-makers. They can hint that he could replace MBZ, or that circles around him are preparing for a shift, or that tensions are rising within the broader ruling family. The claims can be contradictory and still useful, because the purpose is not coherence. The purpose is to plant a question mark and keep it alive.
The most cynical element of this technique is that it attempts to manufacture internal stress where none is visible. It nudges elites into defensive behavior, encourages private briefings and counter-briefings, fuels online loyalty theatre, and creates a mood in which normal decisions start to feel politically risky. It can also affect the external environment. Allies may slow cooperation, investors may delay commitments, and foreign interlocutors may begin to ask not what the UAE wants, but whether the UAE can deliver in six months. This is how disinformation turns into real pressure without any formal confrontation at all.
The deeper reason these tactics appear now is that the UAE has become more consequential, and therefore more contested. For years, the country cultivated the image of a commercial crossroads, a logistics platform, and a financial centre with diversified ties. That dimension remains central, but over roughly the last decade Abu Dhabi has also redefined itself as a proactive political actor. The UAE has expanded its diplomatic footprint, invested in influence across the Middle East and beyond, and positioned itself as a state that does not merely adapt to regional dynamics but seeks to shape them. Visibility on that scale creates competition. In a region where status hierarchies matter and where leadership claims are often implicit rather than formally declared, a state that steps into the vanguard inevitably generates resentment and resistance.
This competition is reinforced by a series of real disputes and proxy arenas in which external actors back different local partners, then use media campaigns to signal pressure and assign blame. In Yemen, for example, late 2025 and early 2026 saw a sharp escalation inside the anti-Houthi camp. Reporting and conflict monitoring described how the Southern Transitional Council, widely characterized as aligned with Abu Dhabi, moved against internationally recognized government structures and forces that were supported by Riyadh, producing a crisis that culminated in early January and was followed by continued unrest and clashes.
The pattern continues across the Red Sea. In Sudan’s war, numerous analyses and reports have described external support flowing to rival factions, with allegations that the UAE has backed the Rapid Support Forces, including through channels that international observers and panels have scrutinized. The broader point is not to litigate every claim in public, but to recognize the strategic consequence. When a state is perceived as influential in multiple conflict theatres, its rivals and competitors have stronger incentives to undermine it, and information warfare becomes a natural extension of proxy competition.
The Horn of Africa adds another layer, where Somaliland has become a geopolitical flashpoint and Gulf rivalries have increasingly bled into local alignments. Reuters has described how tensions among major Gulf powers have spilled into the region, pressuring states to choose sides, and how Somaliland-related dynamics have contributed to wider strains, including Somalia’s reactions and shifting partnerships. Here again, rumors about leadership and stability serve a practical purpose. If you cannot easily block a competitor’s moves in Mogadishu, Addis Ababa, Port Sudan, or elsewhere, you can still try to weaken that competitor’s strategic confidence by portraying it as internally distracted and politically brittle.
Even South Asia appears in this picture. Recent commentary and reporting have pointed to frictions and recalibrations in UAE-Pakistan ties, alongside expanding economic and defence cooperation between the UAE and India. These shifts are often interpreted through the lens of diversification and national interest, yet they also create narratives that adversaries can weaponize, portraying Abu Dhabi as abandoning old partners or building new blocs. The more active the UAE becomes, the more it is forced to operate in a world where every partnership is framed by someone else as a provocation.
This is why it is more accurate to see the rumor about MBZ not as an isolated burst of online gossip, but as a small operation inside a larger information struggle. The real target is the UAE’s internal cohesion, its reputation for continuity, and the confidence that partners place in its ability to execute. The method is to shake the federation psychologically, to encourage internal mistrust, to force leadership circles into a reactive posture, and to tempt observers into believing that a transition is already underway. Even if the claim is false, the pressure can still be real if it changes behavior.
The broader environment makes these tools even more attractive. We are living through a period of global and regional political turbulence, where crises overlap, alliances become more transactional, and public legitimacy is constantly contested. In such conditions, confrontation tends to harden, and information instruments are used with fewer restraints. Rumors about health, succession, and internal discord are particularly effective in monarchic settings because they touch the nerve of continuity. They exploit the reality that leadership is not only a person but an organizing principle for the state.
The Russian saying about the East being delicate matters here in the most literal sense. Delicacy means that nuance has power. It also means that nuance can be turned into a weapon. A postponed visit and a briefly stated reason might look like a footnote, yet it can be transformed into a narrative designed to disrupt an entire political atmosphere. The lesson is not to treat every rumor as meaningful, but to treat every rumor as purposeful. In the Middle East, when a story appears that seems oddly convenient for someone, it usually is.
And this is precisely why the states of the region need to remain vigilant and, in a sense, hedgehog-alert. In a period when the old-world order is visibly eroding and a new one is being assembled through crises, bargains, and shifting alignments, the most dangerous outcome for regional powers is to be driven into fragmentation by manufactured suspicions. External pressures will not disappear, and informational tools will be used with increasing sophistication to pull partners apart, weaken trust, and keep governments reactive rather than strategic. The only durable response is collective maturity: the ability to coordinate, de-escalate where possible, and meet shared challenges through joint effort instead of allowing disinformation to turn neighbours into rivals, and rivals into permanent enemies.