Ordinarily I use this space to comment on political issues. But this time I want to highlight an under-reported story about the Iran crisis — published by the private research firm Bellingcat — that has immediate personal resonance for me.
It means that certain close associates of mine living abroad face mortal peril and may not know it.
The reporting, by Sebastian Vandermeersch, shows that Iranian drone and rocket strikes inside the UAE are far more serious than widely acknowledged. It also reveals that government authorities are actively suppressing accurate public assessments, presumably to preserve the country’s carefully cultivated reputation as a stable global business hub.
Using video, satellite imagery, and other open-source evidence, Bellingcat documents repeated cases in which strikes that appear to be direct hits are officially described as intercepted threats or falling debris or not acknowledged at all.
Fires at key infrastructure, including the Fujairah oil terminal and sites within Jebel Ali port, reportedly show damage inconsistent with official accounts. High-profile civilian locations, from luxury hotels to residential towers, have also been struck in ways that contradict the sanitized descriptions released by authorities.
An apparent strike near Dubai International Airport surfaced in verified footage while officials offered only vague explanations.
At the same time, the UAE has tightened control over war-related information. Publishing or sharing images of strikes has allegedly been criminalized. Dozens—likely more than a hundred—people have been detained for filming or posting footage, and residents are encouraged to report one another.
The predictable result is a shrinking flow of independent evidence just as the intensity of attacks increases.
Filling that void is a parallel messaging effort, Bellingcat reports. Influencers circulate near-identical posts emphasizing safety and stability, reinforcing official narratives even as independent verification points to a more volatile reality.
The effect is to sustain the image of normalcy central to the UAE’s economic model.
Official figures acknowledge casualties—at least a dozen dead and many more injured—but the larger takeaway is the widening gap between reality and what the public is allowed to see.
For those trying to gauge real risk from afar, that gap is not academic. It is the story.
Moreover, as you broaden your lens, you discover that the UAE isn’t the only Gulf power engaged in rigorous message management.
Press freedom groups and regional reporting indicate that authorities in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and other Gulf states have imposed similar restrictions on journalists and ordinary citizens alike, discouraging or criminalizing the sharing of images and firsthand accounts from strike sites. Arrests in the UAE for filming attacks have drawn the most attention, but comparable enforcement actions have been reported elsewhere, suggesting a coordinated or at least convergent approach to information control.
Gaps between official statements and outside reporting have fueled questions about how much is being withheld. In at least one case in Saudi Arabia, external accounts suggested significantly greater damage from a drone strike than authorities publicly acknowledged.
Still, what we are seeing regionally is not a total blackout. Gulf governments do confirm strikes and interceptions, particularly when major infrastructure is involved.
All told, the pattern that emerges is one of calibrated disclosure, enough transparency to maintain credibility, paired with tight control over visuals, damage assessments and on-the-ground reporting. The result is an information environment in which the public is aware of the conflict, but shielded from its full immediacy and potential severity.
Prime source: “The War You’re Not Allowed to See: How the UAE Rewrites the Story of Iranian Strikes” — Sebastian Vandermeersch, a Bellingcat researcher.
Bellingcat Biweekly Newsletter: April 05, 2026.