The Emirati Withdrawal from Yemen: De-Escalation or Strategic Exposure?

The announcement that the United Arab Emirates has decided to end its military presence in Yemen “of its own volition”, while simultaneously urging Saudi Arabia to respond to the Yemeni government’s request for a broader withdrawal, marks a qualitative shift in the Gulf power struggle analyzed in the first part of this study. Far from signaling reconciliation or policy coherence, this move exposes deep fractures between Abu Dhabi and Riyadh—fractures that had long been managed quietly but are now increasingly impossible to conceal.

While Emirati officials and allied media frame the decision as a responsible step toward de-escalation, the political context suggests something more complex: a recalibration under pressure, rather than a principled exit.

Withdrawal in Name, Repositioning in Practice

It is critical to clarify what “withdrawal” means in the Emirati case. The UAE has already reduced its visible troop presence since mid-2019, following battlefield stalemates, international criticism, and growing costs. What is new today is not the physical drawdown itself, but the political declaration of ending military presence—a declaration made at a moment of heightened Saudi–Emirati tension.

Western outlets such as Reuters and The Financial Times, alongside Arab media including Al-Akhbar, Al-Mayadeen, and Al-Jazeera, converge on one point: the UAE is not abandoning Yemen altogether—it is changing the form of its involvement.

Abu Dhabi retains influence through: • locally trained and armed forces, • control over strategic ports and islands, • intelligence networks, • and political leverage within southern Yemeni structures.

In other words, this is less a retreat than a transition from overt militarization to indirect domination.

Saudi Arabia “Flips the Table”

What makes the moment explosive is Riyadh’s recent posture toward the Southern Transitional Council (STC)—the very force nurtured, financed, and protected by the UAE. Saudi pressure on the STC, coupled with calls for all foreign forces to withdraw at the request of the internationally recognized Yemeni government, amounts to a direct challenge to Emirati gains in the south.

Saudi Arabia’s message is clear: if the war is to wind down, it will do so on Saudi terms, not Emirati ones.

This represents a reversal of roles. For years, Riyadh tolerated Emirati autonomy in southern Yemen because it lacked alternatives. Today, facing strategic failure against Ansar Allah (the Houthis), mounting economic costs, and pressure to stabilize its borders, Saudi Arabia appears intent on recentralizing the Yemeni file—even if that means sidelining Abu Dhabi.

Why Now? The Timing of the Emirati Decision

The timing of the Emirati announcement is not accidental. Several converging pressures explain the sudden formalization of withdrawal: 1. Yemeni Battlefield Reality The balance of power has shifted decisively in favor of Ansar Allah. The Houthis have proven resilient, technologically adaptive, and capable of deterrence—militarily and economically. Continued Emirati exposure offered diminishing returns. 2. Saudi–Houthi De-Escalation Talks Quiet negotiations between Riyadh and Sana’a—reported intermittently since 2022—have marginalized Abu Dhabi. The UAE risks being excluded from any final settlement while still bearing reputational and political costs. 3. Regional Repositioning Abu Dhabi is increasingly focused on economic diplomacy, normalization dividends, and maritime trade security. Yemen’s open-ended conflict is incompatible with this strategy. 4. Fear of Becoming the Fall Guy By declaring withdrawal “voluntarily,” the UAE seeks to avoid being framed—domestically or internationally—as having been pushed out by resistance forces or Saudi maneuvering.

Hadhramout and Taiz: The Next Fault Lines

The implications for Hadhramout and Taiz are particularly significant.

• Hadhramout, Yemen’s largest governorate and a critical energy corridor, is emerging as the next arena of Saudi–Emirati competition. Saudi Arabia has been expanding its footprint there precisely as Emirati influence elsewhere is questioned. A power vacuum here could either be filled by Riyadh or destabilized further—both scenarios carry risks. • Taiz, long neglected and fragmented, may experience renewed contestation as external patrons reposition. Emirati disengagement could weaken certain militias, but without a sovereign Yemeni framework, instability may persist.

In both cases, the absence of a unified Yemeni state—a condition deliberately produced by years of intervention—means that withdrawals do not automatically translate into sovereignty.

What This Means for the Houthis—and for Yemen

For Ansar Allah, the Emirati announcement is a strategic vindication. It confirms what the resistance has argued consistently: that the coalition is fragmenting under pressure, and that steadfastness alters equations.

Yet the Houthis are unlikely to misread the situation. They understand that: • Emirati influence has not vanished, • Saudi intentions remain ambiguous, • and external actors may attempt to freeze, rather than resolve, the conflict.

For Yemen as a whole, the moment is ambiguous but consequential. Reduced foreign military presence may lower immediate tensions, but it also exposes the reality that Yemen’s fate has been negotiated over—not with—its people.

Saudi–Emirati Relations: Beyond Tactical Disputes

This episode will not destroy Saudi–Emirati relations, but it has permanently altered them. What once appeared as a unified Gulf front is now unmistakably a managed rivalry, characterized by: • diverging threat perceptions, • competition over influence, • and conflicting endgames in Yemen.

Coordination will continue where interests align—especially under US mediation—but trust has been eroded.

Conclusion: Withdrawal as Admission

The Emirati withdrawal from Yemen does not signal peace; it signals admission—admission of limits, of failure, and of the impossibility of imposing outcomes by force on a resisting society.

As argued in Part I, Yemen was never merely a battlefield. It was a test of regional order. Today, that order is cracking.

Whether this moment leads to genuine Yemeni sovereignty or merely a rebranding of domination will depend less on Gulf declarations and more on the balance forged by resistance, resilience, and political clarity inside Yemen itself.