This week, multiple media outlets citing anonymous sources from the Wall Street Journal reported that the UAE is preparing to assist the United States and its allies to use military force to open the Strait of Hormuz, and is said to be lobbying for the United Nations Security Council to authorize relevant military actions. Should this development be confirmed, the UAE may become the first Gulf state directly involved in the conflict against Iran in this round of tensions, marking a significant shift in its role beyond mere military cooperation. Simultaneously, Iran has been repeatedly quoted as "willing to block the strait to drag the global economy down with it," having previously threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz multiple times, raising the risk of potential escalation in this global energy "throat" facing the horrors of war.

Choking the Throat of the Strait: Escalating Threats of an Iranian Blockade

The Strait of Hormuz has long been regarded as a strategic point for global energy transportation, serving as a key passage linking the oil-producing region of the Persian Gulf to global markets. Public sources widely indicate that a large amount of Middle Eastern crude oil and natural gas passes through here daily; any disruption in transit would directly impact global supply chains and transportation costs, imposing systemic pressure on major energy-importing countries. In such a "marine pipeline," any military friction or anticipated blockade would be magnified by the market as a prelude to global economic risk.

In the long-standing game between Iran and the West, "blockading Hormuz" has been a repeatedly touted extreme option by Tehran. Research briefs quote anonymous officials asserting that Iran is "willing to block the strait to 'drag the global economy down with it'," suggesting the possibility of responding to pressure by affecting global trade and energy prices. While such statements are primarily sourced from anonymous channels and indirect quotes, they have intensified worries among the international community regarding Iran's willingness to push the situation to extremes, given the current tense regional context.

Under the shadow of such threats, regional countries, along with external powers like the United States, are passively pushed toward a dilemma of "either accepting long-term high-risk coercion or considering more radical means." For Gulf states reliant on the security of the strait, there is significant uncertainty as to whether mere diplomatic mediation can effectively restrain Iran; for the U.S. and its allies, a vital energy channel that is always under threat of being choked also challenges their traditional control over global maritime channel security. According to the brief, it is precisely against the backdrop of this blockade threat that ensuring the strait remains open through military force has begun shifting from theoretical deterrence to being presented as a practical option.

From Oil Selling to Troop Deployment: The Contradiction and Shift in the UAE's Role

For a long time, the UAE's primary narrative in the international sphere has been as an energy-exporting country and regional "mediator." On the one hand, it is an important oil-producing state; by maintaining relatively stable production and exports, it participates in shaping global oil market expectations. On the other hand, the UAE has attempted to play the role of a dialogue platform and financing center in multiple rounds of regional conflicts, using cities like Dubai and Abu Dhabi as financial and logistics hubs to enhance its image as a "safe haven." This positioning has allowed it to benefit from the energy windfall while maintaining distance from direct warfare.

However, in the current reporting on the Hormuz crisis, the assertion that "the UAE is prepared to directly participate in militarily opening the strait" presents a striking contrast in its role. Not merely refueling from the rear but "clearing obstacles" at the front; not just regulating supply as an oil-producing nation but engaging in military actions to secure the passage. This leap from oil seller to potential troop contributor, should it materialize, signifies the UAE's willingness to assume frontline risks on regional security issues rather than simply paying "security service fees."

Statements cited by multiple media outlets suggest that this will "make the UAE the first Gulf state to directly join the battle". The symbolic significance of this statement lies in the fact that it highlights the loosening of internal divisions within Gulf states—evolving from the traditional model of "the U.S. taking the lead in combat while the Gulf pays for it" toward a new phase of "Gulf states potentially deploying their own troops." Furthermore, this could alter external perceptions of the UAE—from a "small but wealthy" nation relying on oil and finance to becoming an active player willing to engage in reshaping regional order through hard power.

Behind-the-Scenes Lobbying: Clashing with Security Council Authorization and Alliance Concepts

According to the research brief, the key information regarding the UAE's actions currently seems to derive almost entirely from a single media report: the UAE is alleged to be lobbying the United Nations Security Council for authorization for military action to "open the Strait of Hormuz," while urging several major military powers from the U.S., Europe, and Asia to form an alliance. If this claim holds, it suggests that the UAE is not solely communicating with the U.S. at a bilateral level but attempting to place the action within a multilateral framework backed by international law to mitigate its political and legal risks.

However, from a realistic standpoint, securing clear military authorization from the Security Council is a high bar. The differences in positions among the five permanent members regarding Iran and their assessments of the Middle East situation are vast; the veto right of any one country could cause relevant resolutions to die before birth. Even within the Western bloc, consensus on using military force to "secure energy channels" is not solid; Europe struggles to form a unified stance on high-risk military actions due to variables like energy dependencies, external security investments, and domestic political pressures. The brief also underscores that the notion of urging major military powers from the U.S., Europe, and Asia to form an alliance remains at the level of ideation and persuasion, with significant distance to a substantive military alliance.

On a deeper level, the calculations of major powers are complex and intertwined. For certain countries, Iran is both a potential source of risk and a tool to restrain the influence of adversaries; for others, maintaining energy and economic exchanges with Iran is a practical necessity. Moreover, any overt military pressure on Iran could spark domestic public opinion debates around "intervening in a new war." Thus, even with the undeniable strategic value of Hormuz, the surrounding multilateral military authorization and alliance plans will continue to be refined amidst conflicting interests and divergent positions, far from being swiftly materialized by a single report.

Anonymous Sources Abound: Media Revelations and the Boundaries of Information

From the source of information, the research brief clearly states that currently, almost all Chinese reports trace back to a single report from the Wall Street Journal, which in turn heavily relies on anonymous sources. This implies that secondary and tertiary retellings may continually "amplify certainty" in terms of language and tone, but the underlying facts still remain at the level of "insider sources reveal," rather than official documents or public statements. For readers, the structural risks of this information chain far exceed the superficial notion of "multiple media outlets following up."

Equally important is that neither the UAE nor the U.S. has issued a formal statement confirming or detailing the relevant military plans. The research brief repeatedly emphasizes that the so-called "military alliance" remains in the stage of lobbying and discussion, with no public Security Council text, no announced framework for the alliance, and no verifiable timelines or lists of participant countries. In this situation, any characterization of it as "a done deal" or "war is imminent" carries significant predictive elements.

Regarding the joint statements and documents from over 20 countries mentioned by some channels, the brief specifically categorizes them as "information pending verification." Such materials lack authoritative sources and full disclosures and cannot confirm their specific content or legal efficacy, nor should they be interpreted as established international commitments. For investors and observers, the greatest risk lies not in insufficient information but in mistaking unverified anonymous news for established facts, leading to extreme judgments and decisions.

Testing the New Order in the Gulf: Rearranging Iran's Relationships with Neighbors

If the UAE ultimately transitions from a behind-the-scenes coordinator to a practical participant in military actions in Hormuz, the impact on the relationship dynamics between Iran and Gulf countries will be structural. In recent years, numerous countries in the region have sought to find buffering space between U.S.-Iran confrontations through limited engagement and economic cooperation to reduce the chances of direct collisions; however, if a Gulf country openly intervenes in Iran's core interest-sensitive areas with military posture, this "buffer zone" will be significantly compressed.

From Iran's perspective, the role switch of the UAE signifies not only a military threat but also a diplomatic signal: it means that within the Gulf, there may emerge frontline partners willing to deeply bind themselves to the U.S. on key issues. Potential Iranian response pathways may include taking more deterrent military actions at sea and in surrounding waters, as well as increasing diplomatic lobbying to prevent the formation of an "anti-Iran alliance" in the Gulf. Each escalation of posture carries the risk of triggering new regional crises through misjudgment or inadvertent conflicts.

Internally within Gulf states, security collaboration, external alliances, and degrees of dependence on the U.S. may also experience new differentiation. Some countries may believe that for a life-and-death passage like Hormuz, a combination of "relying on oneself + relying on the U.S." is more reliable than mere dependence on the U.S.; others may fear excessive military involvement will expose their countries to Iranian retaliation and regional turmoil, preferring to maintain a watchful or low-key cooperative stance. The outcome is that the internal security landscape of the Gulf may pull away along the paths of "active troop deployment—cautious alliances—attempting neutrality," planting new fissures for future regional order.

Countdown to the Brink of War: Opportunity Window and Risk of Misjudgment

In summary, the UAE's shift from a traditional observer and mediator to potentially betting on "ensuring the smooth passage of Hormuz through military force" is a high-risk—high-potential-reward gaming choice: should the action gain international endorsement and execute smoothly, it will significantly enhance its discourse power on regional security issues; but if the action falters or drags into prolonged conflict, both the UAE's own security and economic resilience will be directly pressured, which is not a wager to be taken lightly.

On the information front, it is crucial to emphasize that numerous key pieces of information regarding the UAE's role still linger in the anonymous source reporting phase. The research brief has explicitly marked several details as "missing" or "pending verification," indicating that readers must maintain a clear boundary in interpretation: one side comprises confirmed facts from multiple sources, such as the UAE's traditional positioning as an important oil-producing country and Iran's historical threats to close the strait; the other side includes future scenarios based on anonymous news, like Security Council military authorizations and specifics of intercontinental military alliances, which should not be considered as locked arrangements.

In the coming weeks, what truly demands attention are not the emotional amplifications on social media but a few key realistic variables: firstly, whether a formal agenda or text related to Hormuz will emerge at the Security Council, as well as the voting and speaking directions of major powers; secondly, whether regional diplomacy will unveil a new round of mediation windows, including signals of de-escalation between Iran and Gulf states, and the potential for third-party mediation mechanisms; thirdly, whether the military deployments and training pace around the strait and surrounding waters will noticeably accelerate, or if there will be pointing troop concentrations. Only by correlating these hard signals with current media reports will the market and observers find more truthful coordinates between the narratives and realities of being "on the brink of war."

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。