That is what I was burdened with. Arab News (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/2638181/saudi-arabia) give us ‘Leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan discuss military escalation in the region’, for me the confusion becomes, “Why isn’t the UAE involved?” And the story gives us “The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan discussed the repercussions of the military escalation in the region and its risks to freedom of international navigation and the security of energy supplies in Jeddah on Monday, the Saudi Press Agency reported. The impact of the escalation on the global economy and the coordination of joint efforts to enhance regional security and stability were also discussed during the meeting hosted by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and attended by Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani and Jordan’s King Abdullah II.” My confusion doesn’t end there. The escalations seemed to be set into alleged spreading discourse in the Middle East, Iran like a toddler, that it is denied a bigger seat at the table and a bigger slice of the pie is spreading discourse to the UAE and Saudi Arabia. To see the evolution of that thought I have two pieces of information.

In the first image we see the realist on the UAE, in the second image we see Arab News who gave us last week how it differs towards Israel.

However, the third image (from another source) gives us another picture. We are given 342 missiles and 1,699 drones for the UAE, 26 missiles and 413 drones for Saudi Arabia as well as 183 missiles and 87 drones for Qatar. I get the attacks on Israel, Israel attacked Iran, as such Iran attacks Israel now. But the numbers do not make sense to me in any traditional setting of warfare, even in the desperate setting we saw Iran in the past. This kind of warfare is about creating distrust. And as I see it the United States likes that a little too much. I reckon that the United States has its own reasons. But the damage destabilisation gives the Middle East is now too dangerous to consider. But Iran does not care, it wants a seat, a much bigger seat and it will take any risk it need to take. This is pretty much one of the reasons that I gave my IP (to destroy Iranian harbours, rails and roads) to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, because I personally feel that a strong and stable Middle East is at present one of the best things we could hope for in our world.
To give us a better view on the numbers. The UAE got hit with the same amount of drones as the sum of all other gulf nation.

So, if these numbers are correct (still a dangerous thing to ‘compare’ percentages), Iran hit the UAE more often than the attacking nation of Israel. Does that make sense to anyone? I get that they attack Israel, it attacked them, but the UAE never attacked Iran (to the best of my knowledge), a setting, which I initially considered to be an act of desperation to get the Gulf States involved in all this. Is now seen (by me) as a way for Iran to get a larger piece of the Gulf pie and a larger seat at the table. As such the United States is hitting Iran, but if my thoughts are on the money, I reckon that soon enough some miraculous setting comes up that is laughingly called peace and as the United States will give some repartee that they ‘won’ the war, the actual winner would be Iran, because they will end up with a much bigger seat at the table and they will push their hatred of Israel to the entire table and the United States will not care what happens to Israel, they get to live another month with the oil settings they end up with.
Now, this is all speculation, but it fits the current data model and if that data changes, so will it debunk my speculation on this matter, I can live with this, because I got here without aid from the media, they are busy chasing their digital dollars. In all this, the setting that the world is better off with a destabilised Middle East is utterly wrong. It comes from conservative christians and jokes that have listened to and loved the Crusaders fables going back centuries. And we made the mess in this world ourselves, we let ourselves be fooled and bought the considerations that others gave us. But I believe that a strong Middle East (one without Iran) is our best option to regain some of what we all lost. As I see it, it will also exclude the United States, no matter when this president is replaced, it is now living under the yoke of minus $38 trillion (aka minus $38,000,000,000,000, or is it minus $38,000,000,000,000,000?) we throw billions and trillions around like it is nothing, but the real number in dollars shows the world how deep the hole is that the United States dug for itself. And consider that they had a proven crude oil reserve in the United States of 44.4 billion barrels and still they are digging themselves an increasing debt hole. And no matter what hypes we see, there is nothing they will do, because Wall Street lives in the now, and the next and previous quarter. This shortsighted setting only held those who think that they are in charge, but they are slaves to greed and ego. That is how I see it and I understand that I might be wrong, but this is where the data leads me. Above else I do believe in data, the verified versions above all others. So could I be wrong? Definitely, but what conclusions do you draw from the facts we are exposed to? And at this time with this administration the United States has, do you actually think that they will add anything to the matter? This president (seemingly) and his businesses defaulted on hundreds of millions in loans and filed for corporate bankruptcy six times between 1991 and 2009. Then we get the settings of Canada and Greenland which alienated his northern neighbor and they are now shunning the United States costing it billions in tourism and a lot more in various ways. It alienated Europe wanting to ‘annex’ Greenland and this president kept on insulting the European leaders who are now aligning with Canada and this collection of 28 nations is largely shunning the United States. Then he went to Venezuela and did it all over again and now we see Iran, which is apparently costing the United States The US war on Iran, which began in early 2026, cost an estimated $ 11.3 billion in the first six days and surpassed $ 16.5 billion by day 12, according to reports. Costs include high munitions expenditures, repairs to regional infrastructure, and accelerated military deployments, with over $200 billion in additional funding (source: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)). So how much is the United States getting out of this? The question is slowly becoming what does the United States have to gain with a destabilised Middle East? I don’t expect the media to look into this, not with the digital dollar drive they have, but that might be my speculative mind.
So you all have a great day and consider what harm destabilisation of the Middle East will bring us all and consider that President Trump has figured out one thing. The nation with the most oil will survive at present, so where does that leave Iran? Enjoy your day this day.



