Amid Iranian missile strikes, the United States cannot leave its Gulf partners like the UAE in the lurch.

President Donald Trump’s latest public statements on Iran point to a clear strategic intent: deny Tehran a nuclear weapon, maintain military pressure, and avoid turning a limited campaign into an open-ended American ground war. 

In recent remarks, Trump said he was not interested in negotiations under current conditions, suggested the war could end only when Iran no longer has a functioning military or leadership capable of continuing it, later said the conflict was “very complete, pretty much,” and added that any decision on ending the war would be made in consultation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

At the same time, President Trump indicated that he was “nowhere near” a decision to send US troops into Iran to secure enriched uranium. Taken together, those statements suggest a president determined to restore deterrence and eliminate the nuclear threat, but also wary of unnecessary mission expansion.

That instinct is sound. But if the Trump administration wants its Iran policy to produce a durable strategic outcome, it must pay close attention not only to what happens inside Iran, but also to what happens to America’s regional partners under Iranian pressure. Consequently, what happens to the United Arab Emirates will be one of the key tests of whether a pro-American regional order in the Middle East can hold under stress.

The UAE is often described in Washington as variously a “Gulf partner,” a “major investor” in the United States, or an “energy producer.” All of these descriptions are true, but considered individually, they present an incomplete picture. The more important point is that the Emirates made a deliberate strategic choice over the past several years to modernize rather than stagnate, to develop rather than fall into regional chaos, to pursue technological ambition rather than revolutionary rhetoric, and to cooperate with the West rather than dwell on permanent grievances.

In a region still marked by militias, proxy warfare, and political paralysis, the UAE built a model centered on commerce, infrastructure, innovation, and state capacity. In other words, it represents the kind of regional order the United States says it wants to support.

That choice became unmistakable in 2020, when the UAE signed the Abraham Accords with Israel. The agreement established full normalization between the two countries and pointed toward a regional framework built on diplomacy, deterrence, trade, and strategic cooperation rather than on rejectionism alone. The subsequent UAE-Israel Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement deepened that shift by opening market access across more than 96 percent of tariff lines. The Emirates worked normalization into a working instrument of commerce, technology, and long-term integration.

Trump deserves considerable credit for helping make that realignment possible. The Abraham Accords remain one of the most consequential strategic achievements associated with his presidency because they changed the logic of regional politics. They showed that Arab states did not have to remain trapped in the stale formulas of the past. They could work with Israel, deepen ties with the United States, and pursue prosperity without surrendering sovereignty. The question now is whether the United States will defend that model now that Iran is trying to impose costs on the states that chose it.

Since the Iran War began on February 28, Iran has fired on Gulf states that host US military bases, including the UAE. The Emirati ambassador to the United Nations said the UAE had endured more than 1,400 attacks in recent days, with four civilians killed and 114 injured. He also warned that civilian infrastructure, including desalination and energy facilities, had come under threat. Nonetheless, the UAE has continued to call for de-escalation and has publicly stated that its territory will not be used for attacks on Iran.

That reality should sharpen strategic thinking in Washington. If the United States can destroy targets inside Iran without reassuring and defending the states that aligned themselves with the US regional vision, then the message to the region will be mixed at best. States such as the UAE took a real risk when they normalized relations with Israel and deepened their security and economic cooperation with Washington. If those states conclude that Iranian retaliation is a price of US alignment, without corresponding protection, then the Abraham Accords may survive on paper while weakening in strategic substance.

There is also a clear American interest here. Last May, the Trump administration secured more than $200 billion in new US-UAE commercial deals and accelerated a previously committed $1.4 trillion UAE investment framework in the United States over the next 10 years. The White House also said the UAE agreed to align key national security regulations with those of the United States, including protections against the diversion of US-origin technology. The UAE is not a charity case or a free-rider but a high-value strategic partner tied directly to US industrial capacity and technological advantages.

Defending the UAE does not require the Trump administration to abandon prudence. On the contrary, it points toward a disciplined strategy consistent with Trump’s own instincts. Washington should continue to make clear that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. It should strengthen integrated air and missile defense for Gulf partners under direct threat. It should expand intelligence and cyber coordination with the UAE and other exposed partners. It should ensure rapid replenishment of defensive systems and establish unmistakable consequences for attacks on civilian infrastructure. And it should preserve a diplomatic off-ramp, because deterrence is strongest when backed by both capability and strategic clarity.

Trump’s broader point has always been that American power should produce real outcomes: more security, more leverage, and a regional balance more favorable to US interests. That standard should apply here as well. The measure of success in Iran will not only be what the United States destroys but also what it secures. If the states that chose peace with Israel, partnership with the United States, and a future built on development and technology emerge stronger, then Trump’s strategy will have reinforced a regional order worth preserving. If they are left exposed, the gains will wither away.

The UAE matters because it made the choice that Washington has long asked regional partners to make. If the Trump administration wants its Iran policy to be remembered as more than a tactical show of force, it should make clear that the states that build, integrate, and align with the United States will not stand alone.

About the Author: Niger Innis

Niger Innis is the national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the first Black-led organization recognized by the United Nations, and is currently serving on the UN’s Economic and Social Council. Niger is co-chairman of the Affordable Power Alliance, a coalition of minority ministerial organizations concerned about resource issues. He is the co-founder of the New America organization and has also worked with Senior Citizen Advocates, the EEN247 cable channel, the Membership Committee of the National Rifle Association, and various local chambers of commerce across America.

The post The Iran War’s Test for Donald Trump’s Middle East Strategy appeared first on The National Interest.