Leaked American documents have revealed a covertly organised security and military partnership between the Israeli occupation regime and several Arab states — including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — over the past three years.
This cooperation reportedly continued throughout the genocidal war on Gaza, despite both governments’ public condemnations of Israeli atrocities.
According to the Washington Post, the documents expose a regional security network coordinated by the US Central Command (CENTCOM) that has evolved from technical meetings into real-time intelligence and radar data exchanges and joint military exercises.
The same network is now expected to support and monitor the new ceasefire arrangements on the ground.
Washington has reportedly deployed 200 US troops to the occupation entity, with the possibility of Arab participation in non-combat support roles.
Covert Military Coordination Across Arab Capitals
The leaks reveal that Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar hosted multiple planning meetings between Israeli and Arab military officers, while Kuwait and Oman were listed as “potential partners.”
A logistics file shows that an Israeli delegation secretly travelled to Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar in May 2024 to avoid public visibility — a move that underscores the extreme political sensitivity surrounding the initiative.
The details align with Pentagon records and official training logs, confirming the authenticity of the program referred to by CENTCOM as the “Regional Security Architecture.”
Saudi Arabia and the UAE at the Core of the System
The documents place Riyadh and Abu Dhabi at the heart of this emerging military framework.
According to a joint intelligence briefing in 2025, Saudi Arabia participated in security consultations with US officials that covered various regional arenas — including Syria, Yemen, the Houthis, and ISIS remnants.
Meanwhile, the UAE was named among six nations engaged in training, reconnaissance, and data-link operations aimed at constructing a joint air and missile defence shield against perceived threats from Iran and the Houthis movement.
This approach reflects a pragmatic security doctrine that prioritises strategic and defence interests over immediate political costs — under the assumption that quiet cooperation might eventually pave the way for low-visibility political normalisation.
How the “Regional Shield” Was Built
CENTCOM began connecting its partners to US early-warning and aerial tracking systems in 2024, granting six Arab states partial real-time aerial imagery and secure communication channels.
Practically, this coordination enables joint drone-interception drills and missile-defence simulations under an American-led network that includes Tel Aviv and Arab partners — among them Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
However, the trust test came when Israeli warplanes struck Doha on 9 September.
The attack — for which Benjamin Netanyahu later issued a public apology to Qatar via US mediation — exposed serious flaws in the supposed regional umbrella.
Neither the US early-warning network nor Qatar’s radars detected the incoming strike, leaving Washington facing accusations of either complicity or negligence from regional partners.
Experts believe this breach of confidence will likely hinder any deepening of joint security integration, especially with Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, whose interests intersect with Qatar’s in this framework despite diverging political calculations.
Between Public Denials and Secret Cooperation
The revelations come as the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire takes effect — involving prisoner exchanges, limited Israeli withdrawals, and US field assistance.
Sources suggest that Arab personnel involved in this covert military framework could also participate in logistical and technical monitoring of the truce.
Despite strong Arab public statements condemning the Gaza genocide and denouncing Israel’s policies of starvation and displacement, the documents show that military coordination not only continued but expanded under CENTCOM supervision, with a core objective of containing Iran and its allied networks while preventing regional escalation.
The Gulf States’ Calculations
At this stage, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are seen as key players capable of providing financial, diplomatic, and technical cover — without deploying troops into Gaza.
Washington, meanwhile, hopes these Gulf partners will fund post-war reconstruction, train new Palestinian police forces, and perhaps contribute to a multinational “stabilisation force.”
However, both capitals remain cautious:
Financial and political support — yes; ground troop deployment — no.
Analysts note that the Gulf states fear Israeli recklessness if left unchecked, yet cannot break free from US security dependency or ignore Iranian threats to their own strategic domains.
Why Riyadh and Abu Dhabi Chose This Path
Three overlapping motives explain the Saudi-Emirati approach:
- Deterrence Strategy:
To establish a defensive shield against Iranian missiles and drones threatening vital energy and port infrastructure.
Israel’s participation brings technical expertise, while the US provides command and political protection. - Managing the Gaza Ceasefire:
To oversee security arrangements, border monitoring, and logistical coordination through advanced Gulf technologies — allowing influence over Gaza’s post-war order without direct involvement. - Gradual Normalisation via Security First:
Quiet cooperation may, in their view, pave the way for low-cost political openings, following the logic of “security first, politics later.”
Yet this remains a fragile wager, particularly after incidents like the Doha airstrike, which shook regional trust.
Conclusion
In essence, the leaks position Saudi Arabia and the UAE as active partners within a US-led regional security architecture that includes Israel and multiple Arab states.
The declared goals — “deterring Iran and managing the aftermath of Gaza’s war” — reveal how Washington continues to entangle Arab governments in the occupation’s security agenda, even as Muslim populations across the region overwhelmingly reject such alignment.
