Relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have in the last decade, been competitive. Led by two ambitious but visionary men – both named Mohammed: MBS – Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia; and MBZ – Mohammed bin Zayed, the Ruler of Abu Dhabi and president of the Emirates, the two Gulf neighbours embraced many aspects of modernity, and moved hurriedly to turn their countries into global vanguards", writes Dennis Sammut, in this Briefing for Arabia Concise. "Yet up to now, competition was kept within bounds. They cooperated closely in areas of security and presented a united front. They were on the same side when they confronted Qatar and in their opposition to the Houthis' takeover of Yemen. Yet problems had been brewing under the surface for a while, and in the last month they burst into the open." The relations between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been increasingly strained as a result of the different approaches of the two countries towards Yemen. The problems between Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are not new. The Kingdom was never happy with the existence of the smaller states on the Arabian peninsula, which, for most of the 20th century, had British “protection”. But the wisdom of MBZ’s father, Sheikh Zayed, the founder of the UAE, and the caution of MBS's uncles, who ruled Saudi Arabia, generally managed the problems outside the public eye. When the British peace ended abruptly in the 1960’s – the British ran out of money – many thought that the Saudi peace would replace it. Sixty years later, it still has not. not only in monetary terms, but also diplomatically. Saudi “Peace” may be tempting, but it comes at a price. The UAE remains vulnerable because of its size, demography and geography; Its wealth may protect it for a while, but it has its limits. The decision of the UAE to break ranks and recognise Israel may have endeared it to the United States. But many inside, as much as outside the country, are not convinced. (You can read the full Briefing by clicking the image above)

"On January 24, 2026, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance will travel to Armenia and Azerbaijan in February 2026 to build on recent peace efforts and advance the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP)", writes Vasif Husseynov in this op-ed for commonspace.eu "In his statement, President Trump said the visit would “build on our peace efforts, and advance the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity,” signaling Washington’s intent to maintain high-level engagement in a region of growing strategic significance." The announcement came just days after January 14, 2026, when U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan signed the Implementation Framework for TRIPP in Washington, D.C. The agreement translated commitments reached at the August 8, 2025, Washington Summit into a practical roadmap for achieving unimpeded multimodal transit connectivity between Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic through Armenian territory. According to official statements, the framework provides mechanisms for planning, construction, operation, and oversight of infrastructure while fully affirming Armenia’s sovereign authority over the route. The expanded American role in the South Caucasus has elicited reactions from other regional powers. Russia, previously the primary security guarantor in the region and the former key mediator in the talks on the Zangezur corridor, has seen its influence overtaken by U.S. participation under TRIPP. Iranian officials have voiced objections as well, concerned about increased U.S. involvement near their borders and potential shifts in regional security dynamics. While both powers have expressed discontent, they have been unable to prevent these changes. Baku and Yerevan, however, understand that their region must remain a platform for cooperation among all external actors, not a theater of confrontation. These developments indicate that the South Caucasus has moved from the periphery to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. The sequence of the Washington Summit, the January 14 TRIPP implementation framework, and the upcoming Vice Presidential visit reflects a sustained strategy aimed at consolidating peace, promoting connectivity, and advancing American influence. By anchoring peace agreements in infrastructural and economic frameworks, embedding strategic oversight in implementation mechanisms, and elevating regional partners within its broader peace architecture, Washington is consolidating its role in a region of enduring strategic importance. (You can read Vasif Husseynov's opinion piece in full by clicking the image)

Donald Trump talks a lot. Speech is his weapon of choice, and attack is his strategy. Dangerous stuff if you happen to be the president of the United States, and have a huge and well-equipped military machine at your disposal in case you want to put words in action. But it does not require a shot to be fired for a lot of people to get hurt, and for relations built over decades to be spoilt. Trump was is Davos last week. His speech was, as expected, controversial. But it was what he said after his return that caused a stir. In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Trump said of Nato troops: "We've never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. "They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan... and they did, they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” In 2005, I took a sabbatical from my NGO work to go and work for six months with the United Nations in Afghanistan. I was part of a five-person team that was to help set up the new Afghan Parliament. My office in Kabul was in Wazir Akbar Khan District, a stone throw away from the British Embassy.  It was as safe as could be in Afghanistan at the time. But, in fact, nowhere was safe. The Serena Hotel, where I used to go every Friday for coffee was bombed soon after, leaving many dead. Every time you left Afghanistan you were glad you were still alive. More than 3,500 coalition soldiers died, about two-thirds of them Americans, as of 2021 when the US withdrew from the country. The UK suffered the second-highest number of military deaths in the conflict behind the US, which saw 2,461 fatalities. Most of the 457 British troops who died serving in Afghanistan over a period of nearly 20 years were killed in Helmand - the scene of the heaviest fighting. Hundreds more suffered injuries and lost limbs. Trump’s insult to the dead, wounded and others who served in Afghanistan will not be forgotten easily. The US will find this out when it needs allies to support it, as it will sooner or later. The NATO alliance was already rattled by Trumps attempts to absorb Greenland, part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. But all the shenanigans around Greenland will blur into insignificance when compared to the insult to thousands of war dead and veterans. The bad taste will linger for a long time and spoils relations that have been built over decades. (click the picture to read the Monday Commentary in full).