Middle East Eye: Iran Is Not Venezuela — and It Has Devastating Options Against Its Adversaries

Tehran - BORNA - Hearst — editor-in-chief of the London-based outlet Middle East Eye — referenced the views of Saudi academic Dr. Ahmed Al-Tuwaijri in cautioning Washington against military adventurism toward Iran. Quoting Al-Tuwaijri, Hearst wrote: “Iran is not Venezuela. Iran has many cards to play — and they are very devastating ones.”

Al-Tuwaijri noted that Iran could target U.S. bases across the Persian Gulf, close the Strait of Hormuz, and even launch more intense missile strikes against Israel.

Hearst also pointed to sharp remarks by Senator Lindsey Graham — a close ally of Donald Trump — directed at Saudi Arabia during the Munich Security Conference. He concluded that Washington should take seriously the warnings of Al-Tuwaijri and others like him, and “listen to the dissenting voice of one of its most important Arab allies” as it risks being pulled into yet another war by following Netanyahu’s lead.

Riyadh Stands Against the Israel–UAE Axis

In another part of his analysis, Hearst describes the United Arab Emirates as a “Trojan horse for Zionism” in the region, arguing that Saudi Arabia is gradually distancing itself from Abu Dhabi and its Western–Israeli partners.

The prominent British analyst examines what he calls a major strategic shift in Saudi Arabia’s approach to West Asian affairs, asserting that Riyadh is positioning itself in opposition to the UAE–Israel axis.

Recent developments in West Asia — particularly following the Gaza war and the killing of tens of thousands of civilians — point to profound changes in regional alliances and power calculations. Among the most notable trends, according to Hearst, is Riyadh’s gradual but meaningful distancing from Abu Dhabi and its Western–Israeli allies.

He characterizes this as a “major strategic move,” citing a controversial article published about a month ago by Al-Tuwaijri in the Saudi newspaper Al Jazeera, which is considered close to official circles. Hearst writes: “When people in the Middle East are allowed to say what is truly on their minds, a very different picture of Israel and the Western consensus behind it emerges.”

In that article, Al-Tuwaijri — in unprecedented language — accused the rulers of the UAE of throwing themselves into the arms of the Zionists and becoming a “Trojan horse” for advancing the project of a Greater Israel. Hearst stresses that such rhetoric had never before been heard in Saudi Arabia regarding its long-standing ally, the UAE.

He adds that “the Saudi kingdom has not only distanced itself from Abu Dhabi, but has also moved closer to Turkey and, more importantly, maintained its détente with Iran.”

A Strategic Rift or a Temporary Dispute?

Hearst notes that Al-Tuwaijri described his article as a personal opinion rather than an official statement of Saudi policy. Nevertheless, the analysis was poorly received in Abu Dhabi, Tel Aviv, and Washington. The UAE quickly mobilized its pro-Israel network in the United States, and Al-Tuwaijri was accused of antisemitism.

More striking, however, was the reaction inside Saudi Arabia. After the article was temporarily taken down under pressure from pro-Israel groups, it was republished by higher authorities — a move that signaled the views expressed went beyond a personal opinion and enjoyed backing within decision-making circles in Riyadh.

According to Hearst, the primary source of Saudi dissatisfaction with Israel and the UAE is the Gaza issue.

Al-Tuwaijri stated: “The scale of wrongdoing and genocide in Gaza convinced Saudi Arabia that with the current mindset governing Israel, there will never be peace. There will never be cooperation. That is why Saudi rhetoric has changed. As the heart of the Islamic world and the most respected Arab country globally, it could not simply stand by and remain silent.”

He further described Saudi Arabia’s participation in Donald Trump’s proposed “Peace Council” plan for Gaza as “nothing more than damage control.”

Why Did Riyadh Step Back From Netanyahu and Bin Zayed’s Vision?

Hearst emphasizes that while Netanyahu seeks to use the destruction of Gaza as a platform to impose Israel as a regional “military hegemon,” such ambitions are not new.

He refers to the Yinon Doctrine of the 1980s, which advocated Israeli military dominance and the fragmentation of regional states along ethnic and sectarian lines. Under that doctrine, Arab states were described as “houses of cards assembled by foreigners” in a region fragmented by imperial powers — entities that, it argued, should be dismantled into smaller ethnic and sectarian units.

Today, however, Riyadh reportedly views Abu Dhabi as a small state seeking outsized influence — influence that comes at the expense of Arab unity and Saudi national interests. Al-Tuwaijri argues that Saudi Arabia invited the UAE into Yemen for assistance, only to witness it pursuing fragmentation there for its own benefit. He contends that the UAE has followed a similar approach in Sudan by backing the Rapid Support Forces, and in Somalia through involvement in Somaliland.

Hearst concludes that the recent shift in Riyadh’s discourse suggests the era of unconditional Saudi support for normalization with Israel and alignment with Israeli-backed partition projects has come to an end. Instead, Saudi Arabia appears intent on shaping a new regional order in which national interests and the Palestinian cause reclaim their central place.

End Article