UAE ambassador backs strike on Iran's nuclear sites | World news | The Guardian
Iran and the United Arab Emirates are embroiled in a furious new row after the latter's ambassador to Washington publicly expressed support for a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Yousef al-Otaiba commented bluntly that the benefits would outweigh the short-term costs of military action. "We cannot live with a nuclear Iran," the envoy said at a conference in Aspen, Colorado. "I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE."
Tehran hit back swiftly with a warning from a leading MP of a "teeth-breaking" response to these "harsh and crude" remarks and a possible ban on Iranian travel to the Gulf state, which does billions of dollars of trade annually with Iran.
The UAE foreign ministry called the reported comments "inaccurate and taken out of context", but they were recorded by the Atlantic Magazine, which organised the conference. The ministry insisted that the UAE wanted a peaceful solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme.
The spat follows Iran's decision to scale back economic relations with the UAE after Abu Dhabi implemented the latest UN sanctions punishing Tehran for ignoring demands over that programme.
The row also underlines wider nervousness in the Gulf about Iran, though the UAE is the most hawkish of its neighbours and has been in dispute with it over three islands since 1971.
Controversy erupted in nearby Kuwait recently over an alleged spy ring for Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and there are concerns elsewhere about Iranian subversion against the Sunni Arab monarchies.
Otaiba was quoted as saying that he "absolutely" wanted the US to use force to halt Iran's nuclear programme.
"Countries in the region view the Iran threat very differently," he said. "I can only speak for the UAE, but talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous. Iran doesn't have nuclear power now but … what makes me think that once they have a nuclear programme, we are going to be able to be more successful in containing them?"
The ambassador's candid remarks were quickly picked up in the US and Israeli media but the damage was done long before an unconvincing official denial was issued in Abu Dhabi. "I hope the government of the UAE will correct this viewpoint," said Kazem Jalali, spokesman for the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.
Analysts and diplomats are aware such views are often expressed in private by officials in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. "Otaiba's remarks may or may not be a gaffe but they certainly reflect official thinking in Abu Dhabi," said Christopher Davidson, a Gulf expert at Durham University. "They want to see more American boots on the ground, and they don't want to live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran."
Davidson said that the UAE also needed to sound hawkish because it is open to accusations of sanctions-busting as Dubai, the closest to Iran of the UAE's seven emirates, is a key trans-shipment point for the Iranian nuclear programme.
Iran and the UAE have close economic ties. Thousands of Iranian companies and businessmen operate in the country and bilateral trade is estimated at $10bn (£6.6bn) a year, mostly made up of Iranian imports. Masoud Daneshmand, head of the Iran-UAE Chamber of Commerce, complained on Tuesday that the Emiratis were going beyond what was required by the UN sanctions regime.
Last week the UAE central bank asked financial institutions in the federation to freeze the bank accounts of 41 Iranians, including the managers of key companies owned by the Revolutionary Guards. The UAE also closed 40 international and local firms accused of shipping contraband and banned dual-use goods to Iran.
Iran and the United Arab Emirates are embroiled in a furious new row after the latter's ambassador to Washington publicly expressed support for a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Yousef al-Otaiba commented bluntly that the benefits would outweigh the short-term costs of military action. "We cannot live with a nuclear Iran," the envoy said at a conference in Aspen, Colorado. "I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE."
Tehran hit back swiftly with a warning from a leading MP of a "teeth-breaking" response to these "harsh and crude" remarks and a possible ban on Iranian travel to the Gulf state, which does billions of dollars of trade annually with Iran.
The UAE foreign ministry called the reported comments "inaccurate and taken out of context", but they were recorded by the Atlantic Magazine, which organised the conference. The ministry insisted that the UAE wanted a peaceful solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme.
The spat follows Iran's decision to scale back economic relations with the UAE after Abu Dhabi implemented the latest UN sanctions punishing Tehran for ignoring demands over that programme.
The row also underlines wider nervousness in the Gulf about Iran, though the UAE is the most hawkish of its neighbours and has been in dispute with it over three islands since 1971.
Controversy erupted in nearby Kuwait recently over an alleged spy ring for Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and there are concerns elsewhere about Iranian subversion against the Sunni Arab monarchies.
Otaiba was quoted as saying that he "absolutely" wanted the US to use force to halt Iran's nuclear programme.
"Countries in the region view the Iran threat very differently," he said. "I can only speak for the UAE, but talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous. Iran doesn't have nuclear power now but … what makes me think that once they have a nuclear programme, we are going to be able to be more successful in containing them?"
The ambassador's candid remarks were quickly picked up in the US and Israeli media but the damage was done long before an unconvincing official denial was issued in Abu Dhabi. "I hope the government of the UAE will correct this viewpoint," said Kazem Jalali, spokesman for the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.
Analysts and diplomats are aware such views are often expressed in private by officials in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. "Otaiba's remarks may or may not be a gaffe but they certainly reflect official thinking in Abu Dhabi," said Christopher Davidson, a Gulf expert at Durham University. "They want to see more American boots on the ground, and they don't want to live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran."
Davidson said that the UAE also needed to sound hawkish because it is open to accusations of sanctions-busting as Dubai, the closest to Iran of the UAE's seven emirates, is a key trans-shipment point for the Iranian nuclear programme.
Iran and the UAE have close economic ties. Thousands of Iranian companies and businessmen operate in the country and bilateral trade is estimated at $10bn (£6.6bn) a year, mostly made up of Iranian imports. Masoud Daneshmand, head of the Iran-UAE Chamber of Commerce, complained on Tuesday that the Emiratis were going beyond what was required by the UN sanctions regime.
Last week the UAE central bank asked financial institutions in the federation to freeze the bank accounts of 41 Iranians, including the managers of key companies owned by the Revolutionary Guards. The UAE also closed 40 international and local firms accused of shipping contraband and banned dual-use goods to Iran.
