E-Paper
Sign In
Commentary: The region needs more than an ambiguous ceasefire to end the conflict
The ceasefire is designed not to end the conflict, but to manage it — a temporary equilibrium that keeps the region suspended in a “no war, no peace” posture
- PUBLISHED: Thu 21 May 2026, 6:00 AM UPDATED: Thu 21 May 2026, 7:27 PM
- By:
- Dr. Abdullah Belhaif Al Nuaimi
The author is currently president of UAE Safety and Emergency Security Association and professor of sustainable development at the American University of Sharjah. He is former UAE Minister of Climate Change and Environment and former Minister of Infrastructure. A highly sought-after speaker on sustainability, renewable energy, and the built environment, he authored two books on climate change – contributing to academic, policy, and international reforms.
The Gulf region is living through one of its most delicate moments in decades — a phase where war and ceasefire overlap, escalation and restraint coexist, and the landscape is defined less by decisive outcomes and more by controlled ambiguity.
Recommended For You
The initial strikes on Iranian missile sites, followed by calibrated responses, never evolved into a full-scale war. Yet they also never settled into a genuine ceasefire. Instead, a new equation has emerged: A confrontation managed with enough pressure to keep tensions alive, but not enough to trigger an uncontrollable spiral. It is a space deliberately kept grey — a fire kept glowing beneath the surface.
Within this shifting landscape, the UAE has found itself drawn into the wider consequences of the conflict. Attacks targeting critical infrastructure — including attempts to tamper with the Barakah nuclear energy plant — underline a broader reality: The UAE’s development model has become part of the regional pressure calculus. Barakah is not merely a technical project; it is a pillar of the nation’s future, a symbol of its ability to build a diversified, knowledge‑driven economy. Targeting it was not an isolated act, but a message embedded in a larger attempt to disrupt a successful development trajectory.
Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.
Militarily, the United States continues to keep the option of a wider strike on the table, though it has delayed such action at the request of Gulf partners seeking to give Pakistan’s mediation efforts more time.
Iran, meanwhile, has raised its defensive posture around Qeshm Island and the Strait of Hormuz, signalling readiness for a more sensitive phase. Despite the early strikes, Washington maintains that 70 per cent of Iran’s missile capabilities remain intact, and that Tehran has regained control over most of its positions near the strait — a reminder of Iran’s ability to absorb pressure and reposition quickly.
The Strait of Hormuz itself has entered a new chapter. Iran’s announcement of a "PGSA" and its claim that passage without its approval is unlawful, represent an attempt to assert direct control over the world’s most strategic waterway. The US responded with “Operation Freedom Passage,” insisting it has thwarted Iranian attempts to disrupt navigation. Between these competing narratives, the strait remains effectively constrained, raising insurance costs and placing additional pressure on global energy markets.
Artificial arrangement
Amid these developments, it has become increasingly clear that the current ceasefire is less a natural pause and more an artificial, managed arrangement between the principal actors.
Recent remarks by US President Donald Trump — noting that Iran has restored its capabilities and positions around the Strait during the lull — reveal that the ceasefire did not weaken Tehran. Instead, it provided time to rebuild missile infrastructure and reposition assets. This reinforces the perception that the ceasefire emerged from implicit understandings that serve multiple interests: Washington’s need for political and legal space, Tehran’s desire to rearm, and Israel’s focus on its northern front in Lebanon.
The result is a ceasefire designed not to end the conflict, but to manage it — a temporary equilibrium that keeps the region suspended in a “no war, no peace” posture.
For regional states, this creates a complex environment. Gulf countries — particularly the UAE — must navigate a dual challenge: Safeguarding national security while ensuring that development continues uninterrupted.
The UAE has demonstrated a clear capacity to manage this balance, whether through strengthening air‑defence systems or accelerating plans to expand export capacity in Fujairah, reducing reliance on the Strait of Hormuz. These steps reflect a strategic understanding of the risks inherent in the current phase.
UAE's long‑term trajectory
The attacks that targeted the UAE, including the attempt on Barakah, underscore a broader truth: Development itself has become part of the regional contest. Nations that succeed in building advanced economic models inevitably attract the attention — and sometimes the hostility — of those who struggle to accept such progress. Yet the UAE has not treated these incidents as existential threats. Instead, it has approached them as manageable challenges within a turbulent regional context — challenges that can be contained without compromising the country’s long‑term trajectory.
Despite the complexity of the moment, the UAE remains anchored in a clear and steady approach: Protecting its security, preserving its stability, and advancing its development path without distraction.
Countries that build their future on knowledge and economic diversification are not unsettled by artificial ceasefires or transient provocations. They draw strength from their ability to manage crises with composure and to convert challenges into opportunities.
In a region where the strategic landscape shifts by the day, the UAE stands as a model of a state that knows where it stands, where it is heading, and how to safeguard its interests without noise or hesitation — reaffirming that development is not merely an economic project, but a sovereign one that cannot be bent to the logic of conflict.
