By the end of December, a public spat between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates over Yemen had crystallized into a defining moment for Gulf politics. What began in 2015 as a coordinated effort to restore Yemen’s government has exposed sharp divisions: Saudi airstrikes hit a shipment bound for a Yemeni port and the UAE moved to pull its remaining forces. The episode, sudden, public and raw, shows how once-aligned priorities can fracture when national security concerns collide with competing regional ambitions. The consequences touch more than Yemen’s fragile path to stability; they test the cohesion of the Gulf Cooperation Council and reshape how these states balance counterterrorism, separatism and outside influence.

Riyadh’s initial statement framed the escalation as a defensive necessity. By accusing the UAE of pushing the Southern Transitional Council into operations in Hadramout and Al-Mahra, Saudi Arabia cast itself as protector of Yemen’s territorial integrity and its own border security. Those eastern governorates sit on critical trade routes and abut Saudi soil, so any fighting there threatens spillover: smuggling, terrorist infiltration or retaliatory strikes. Riyadh described the shipment to Al-Mukalla as a breach of coalition rules, weapons and vehicles sent without approval, and used the incident to signal that actions undermining the coalition’s goals would not be tolerated. The demand that the UAE cease support for armed Yemeni factions and withdraw forces within 24 hours read less like rhetoric and more like a firm bid to reassert leadership and shore up a vision of a united Yemeni state under the Presidential Leadership Council.

Viewed against a broader strategic backdrop, Saudi concerns make sense. The kingdom has been trying to dial down tensions with Iran and relieve the resource drain of a protracted conflict; a fractured Yemen, propped up in part by separatist actors, would run counter to that aim. From Riyadh’s perspective, empowering groups such as the Southern Transitional Council might produce short-term gains against extremist groups but risks long-term fragmentation and the creation of ungoverned spaces vulnerable to Al-Qaeda, the Houthis, or criminal networks. Still, Saudi critiques have an ironic edge: the kingdom itself has a history of backing disparate Yemeni actors when it suited its interests. That history complicates the moral high ground Riyadh asserts.

The airstrike on Al-Mukalla was decisive, but its proportionality will be debated. Strikes of that kind can deter immediate threats, yet they also carry the risk of civilian harm and the alienation of local communities which can entrench resentment and make political settlement harder. What this confrontation makes clear is that tactical moves by either Riyadh or Abu Dhabi will have strategic effects. Short-term security logic, national prestige and regional rivalry are converging in ways that could reshape alliances in the Gulf for years to come.

In counterpoint, the UAE’s response articulated a narrative of restraint and misattribution, expressing regret over what it termed fundamental inaccuracies in Saudi claims. By rejecting any role in inciting tensions or directing operations against Saudi borders, Abu Dhabi sought to reposition itself as a steadfast ally committed to de-escalation. The statement detailed efforts to contain the situation in Hadramout and Al-Mahra through coordination, emphasizing protection of civilians and stability as shared objectives. This defense pivots on the clarification that the Al-Mukalla shipment involved no weapons but rather vehicles for UAE forces, coordinated at high levels with an agreement to keep them confined to the port. The surprise at their targeting underscores a perceived breakdown in communication, framing the incident as an avoidable escalation rather than deliberate provocation. The UAE’s invocation of its sacrifices since the coalition’s inception, losses in personnel and extensive aid to Yemen, bolsters this view, portraying its presence as invited and purpose-driven, focused on combating terrorism while respecting Yemeni sovereignty.

Delving deeper, the UAE’s argument challenges the notion of betrayal by highlighting its counter-terrorism track record, particularly against Al-Qaeda in southern Yemen. Operations in these areas have often targeted extremist strongholds, aligning with international priorities to secure maritime routes and prevent radical safe havens. By raising concerns about threats from groups including the Houthis and others, the response situates the dispute within a wider anti-extremism framework, calling for wisdom and fact-based handling to avoid broader repercussions.

The decision to withdraw remaining counter-terrorism units, announced in tandem with the statement, represents a pragmatic concession, potentially de-escalating the immediate crisis while preserving strategic flexibility. This move acknowledges the coalition’s evolving dynamics, where the UAE has shifted from ground engagements to advisory roles, allowing it to maintain influence through economic and logistical support. However, this perspective invites scrutiny for its selective emphasis: while denying direct pressure on the Southern Transitional Council, the UAE’s longstanding backing of southern separatists has undeniably shaped the landscape, fostering autonomy that clashes with Saudi unification goals. Such support, though effective in stabilizing pockets against terrorism, risks entrenching divisions that prolong the conflict.

Neutral interpretation of these arguments reveals a symmetry of strengths and blind spots, illuminating how both nations’ strategies, while rational in isolation, collide in practice. Saudi Arabia’s focus on border integrity and unity offers a compelling case for long-term stability, grounded in the need to prevent Yemen from becoming a perpetual threat vector. It aligns with international frameworks endorsing a single Yemeni state, potentially facilitating UN-mediated talks.

Yet, this rigidity may overlook the Southern cause’s legitimacy, rooted in historical grievances from pre-unification eras, where dialogue alone might not suffice without addressing autonomy aspirations. The UAE, conversely, presents a flexible, results-oriented approach that has yielded tangible security gains, such as recapturing territories from extremists. Its withdrawal signals adaptability, but it also exposes the pitfalls of proxy reliance, where empowered militias could pursue agendas misaligned with coalition unity, echoing patterns seen in other regional conflicts.

What this means in the immediate term is a recalibration of power within Yemen, where the UAE’s forces departing leaves the Southern Transitional Council facing heightened vulnerability. This could lead to intensified clashes with government-aligned troops or opportunistic advances by Houthis, while affirming Saudi Arabia’s dominance in the coalition though at the risk of overextension as it fills the vacuum left by Emirati counter-terrorism expertise. Regionally, such discord strains Gulf Cooperation Council solidarity, complicating joint responses to Iranian influence or economic collaborations, and making the Red Sea’s strategic chokepoints more precarious amid potential disruptions to shipping lanes already targeted by Houthi actions.

Building on these shifts, the immediate priority remains damage control to contain the diplomatic fallout, even as Yemen’s fragile governance teeters further. In the short term, tensions show little sign of cooling, with the UAE’s withdrawal potentially deepening divisions through ongoing proxy clashes and mutual accusations of overreach, or manifesting in subtler forms like competing economic projects and contests over strategic assets such as ports and oilfields.

Yet, if de-escalation efforts such as U.S.-mediated talks or a Gulf-wide diplomatic push gain traction, this crisis could open space for renewed negotiations that incorporate southern perspectives, perhaps exploring federal arrangements to balance national unity with local autonomy. Warning signs persist, however: without addressing core divergences like Saudi priorities on border defense versus the UAE’s emphasis on counter-terrorism, the coalition risks unraveling entirely, creating openings for exploitation by external actors such as Iran or the Houthis a pattern familiar from alliances that fray as individual interests reemerge post-crisis. Lasting peace will demand compromise on sovereignty and security questions; otherwise, Yemen’s instability could worsen and spill into broader Gulf rivalries and economic disruptions.

This evolving split underscores that Gulf states do not operate as a monolithic block, with even economic heavyweights like Saudi Arabia and the UAE pursuing distinct goals Riyadh leveraging assertiveness to bolster its domestic leadership image and reforms, while Abu Dhabi’s step back preserves a nimble foreign policy focused on diversification beyond oil. Together, these dynamics signal a more multipolar Gulf, where cooperation and competition coexist, demanding subtler and more flexible diplomacy. As Yemen hangs in the balance, the next few months will reveal whether this rift heals into stronger unity or widens into lasting estrangement with ripple effects across the Arabian Peninsula and beyond.

By Bezawit Eshetu, Researcher, Horn Review