UAE: Shady Roles and Culpable Indifference

UAE's Sudan Gamble: Buying Chaos, Selling Instability

Alright, let's talk about Sudan. Specifically, let's talk about the UAE's involvement in the ongoing mess there, because the narrative being spun doesn't quite line up with the data – or, more accurately, with the outcomes.

The El-Fasher Atrocity: A Cost-Benefit Analysis?

The fall of El-Fasher in late October 2025 to the RSF (Rapid Support Forces) was, by all accounts, a bloodbath. Reports of mass executions, widespread looting, and hospitals being shelled paint a grim picture. The UN Security Council expressed "grave concern," and the EU condemned the "brutality." Standard diplomatic boilerplate, really. But here's where it gets interesting: numerous Sudanese figures, analysts, and human rights activists are calling out the international community's inaction.

Kholood Khair, a Sudanese analyst, put it bluntly: "Western countries issue condemnation after condemnation, but do nothing." This sentiment is echoed across various reports. The question, then, isn't just what happened in El-Fasher, but why the international response seems so muted.

The Middle East Eye report points a finger squarely at the UAE, alleging that they've been funneling cash, weapons, and political cover to the RSF and its leader, General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo (aka "Hemedti"). This support, allegedly delivered through clandestine airlifts and mercenary networks, is supposedly fueling the conflict and tearing Sudan apart. You can read more about this alleged involvement in Money, mercenaries and mayhem: How Israel and UAE are investing in regional chaos.

It's a complicated situation, but let's break down the alleged UAE strategy. The Emirates, under Mohammed bin Zayed, seemingly see the Arab world through a very specific lens: one where stability is achieved through authoritarianism and the suppression of democratic movements. They've allegedly intervened in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, supporting coups and arming militias to maintain the regional status quo. Sudan, apparently, is just the latest chapter in this "counter-revolutionary crusade."

But what's the endgame here? What does the UAE gain from destabilizing Sudan? The Middle East Eye piece suggests that Sudan's gold flows through RSF-UAE channels, and that Israeli and Emirati companies are profiting from looted resources and smuggling networks. This hints at a resource grab.

The Numbers Tell a Different Story

But let's look closer, because this is where I (Julian Vance) get skeptical. Is the economic return really worth the reputational risk and the potential for blowback? The UAE isn't stupid (or, at least, I hope they aren't). They must have run some kind of cost-benefit analysis. Let's try and reverse-engineer it.

Sudan's gold reserves are significant, but not world-changing. Estimates vary, but let's say they're extracting, say, $1 billion worth of gold per year. Even if the UAE is skimming a substantial percentage of that (let's say 50%), that's still only $500 million annually. Peanuts for a country with the UAE's wealth. (Their sovereign wealth fund alone manages hundreds of billions.) The logistical costs of running this operation – the airlifts, the mercenaries, the political maneuvering – must be eating into those profits significantly.

And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. The risk-reward ratio just doesn't add up. The UAE is taking a massive gamble on a relatively small payoff. Unless, of course, there's something else at play here.

It's worth noting that the Middle East Eye piece mentions the UAE's involvement in Gaza, suggesting a broader ideological partnership with Israel and a shared goal of regional disintegration. They cite the UAE's alleged role in Israel's plan to build a "humanitarian city" in Rafah (essentially, a concentration camp for Palestinians) and their efforts to keep Israel's supply lines open during the conflict.

Could Sudan be part of a larger, more complex strategy? One where the UAE is willing to sacrifice short-term economic gains for long-term geopolitical influence? It's possible. But it's also possible that the reporting is incomplete or biased. We're relying on anecdotal evidence and accusations, not hard data.

I've looked at hundreds of these filings, and the lack of concrete financial data is frustrating. It's difficult to prove a direct causal link between the UAE's actions and the RSF's atrocities. Correlation isn't causation, as they say. But the correlation is certainly there.

Buying Instability, Selling… What, Exactly?

So, what's the real takeaway here? The UAE's involvement in Sudan is undoubtedly shady. They're accused of fueling a brutal conflict, and there's a strong suspicion that they're profiting from the chaos. But the economic incentives seem weak. The financial returns don't justify the risks. Which suggests that their motives are more complex and potentially more dangerous than a simple resource grab. They're buying instability, but what are they selling? That's the question we need to answer.