UAE Flatly Denies Reuters Report Claiming $3 Billion Paid to Iran to Stop Missile Attacks

Since Iran struck Fujairah port on May 4, the UAE has faced direct pressure to find a way off the target list without publicly capitulating to Tehran. A sharp factual dispute has now emerged over whether Abu Dhabi already started paying for that exit.

What Reuters Reported

On Friday, Reuters correspondents Andrew Mills, Marwa Rashad, and Ahmad Ghaddar published an exclusive citing four unnamed sources. Two described the UAE as agreeing to release a total of $10 billion to Iran, with more than $3 billion already delivered. The other two put the total figure at $20 billion, framing the arrangement as compensation for war damages in exchange for Iran halting missile and drone strikes.

Reuters noted it could not determine whether the funds came from UAE state money or from long-frozen Iranian assets held in UAE banking channels. A UAE official told Reuters that Abu Dhabi's foreign policy is focused on "promoting de-escalation and reducing tensions across the region" — a statement that confirmed the diplomatic intent without confirming the specific figures.

The UAE's Denial

On Saturday, the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a formal statement calling the Reuters allegations "entirely false and unfounded," according to Kurdistan24, which first reported the rebuttal. The ministry said it had neither transferred a $3 billion initial tranche nor facilitated the release of any frozen Iranian assets through Emirati channels. The MoFA specifically criticized media outlets for publishing what it called baseless claims without verifying through official channels.

The denial is unusually direct for Gulf diplomatic practice, where governments typically stay quiet rather than engage foreign wire services publicly. That bluntness signals how politically toxic the reported arrangement would be if confirmed, both domestically and in terms of UAE relations with Washington.

Why the Dispute Is Hard to Resolve

Sovereign wealth transfers, frozen-asset releases, and informal financial arrangements between state-linked entities rarely produce public documentation in real time. Reuters sourced the story to four regional actors who spoke anonymously. The UAE denial is categorical but equally unverifiable from open sources.

Neither the US Treasury nor any other named regulatory body has commented publicly on whether Iranian-linked assets in UAE banking channels were moved. No investigation has been announced. No charges have been filed.

The strongest case for the UAE's position: a government that just issued a sharp public denial, knowing it would be compared line-by-line against a major Reuters exclusive, has staked its credibility on that denial being accurate. Abu Dhabi does not pick fights with Reuters without calculating the reputational cost.

The strongest case for the Reuters sourcing: the UAE's earlier on-record comment to Reuters about "reducing tensions" did not dispute the financial framework directly. That is not confirmation, but it is a noticeably softer response than what the MoFA issued a day later.

The Broader US-Iran Context

The reported UAE-Iran arrangement, if accurate, would represent a workaround to US sanctions pressure, allowing Iran to receive financial relief outside a formal Washington-Tehran deal while sparing the Trump administration from the optics of direct concessions.

On the nuclear track, Iran International reported that hardline Iranian lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian publicly criticized the emerging US-Iran memorandum of understanding, saying the latest draft was "more damaging" than two earlier versions and involved greater Iranian concessions. "An agreement cooked up by the architects of the disgraceful JCPOA is certainly pure loss," Nabavian wrote.

IRGC-affiliated Fars News separately criticized Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi for what it called an "ambiguous" response after President Trump rejected Iranian media reports about deal terms. Araghchi posted in English on X that the "Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding had never been closer" and urged outlets not to speculate before finalization. Trump reposted that message. Fars argued Araghchi's non-denial of Trump's claim that Iranian leak reports were inaccurate amounted to an indirect confirmation that some published terms were wrong.

What Is and Isn't Established

What is confirmed: Iran struck Fujairah port on May 4. The UAE has publicly stated a policy of de-escalation. Reuters published a detailed report citing four sources. The UAE formally denied the report the following day.

What is alleged but unproven: the specific dollar figures, the mechanics of the transfer, and whether Iranian frozen assets in UAE banks were the vehicle.

What remains genuinely open: whether any US government body was informed of or tacitly approved the arrangement Reuters described. If funds did move, the question of whether they touched sanctioned channels is a matter for OFAC, not just Gulf diplomacy. As of June 13, no US official has addressed the Reuters report by name.