Why did the UAE fund Marie Le Pen, a far-right populist with an anti-Islamic stance, back in France’s 2017 presidential election?
Le Pen was a euro-skeptic lady who campaigned against the European Union, NATO, and political Islam, pushing for French sovereignty even if it meant tilting toward Russia. Macron on the other hand, stood for EU integration, NATO loyalty, and liberal economics, a predictable player in the Western alliance. For the US, the choice was clear. Macron’s win was a dominant strategy. His pro-NATO stance locked France into US MIC, ensuring a steady flow of defense contracts and joint operations. A high-payoff outcome with minimal uncertainty. Meanwhile, the US FIC and CIC reaped massive rewards from Macron’s deregulated, pro-business policies, securing unfettered access to Europe’s markets.
Enter the UAE. Starting with first principles. We know the UAE’s endgame is stability and regional control. And they have proven that they will tolerate and conduct short-term proxy wars, to outmaneuver rivals for long-term dominance and control. We also know that they view political Islam as a vehicle for the US to exploit and destabilize the region by backing Islamic groups. The UAE’s utility function prioritizes neutralizing this threat, even if it means bold moves with uncertain outcomes. Le Pen was their gambit. A Le Pen presidency would’ve disrupted the transatlantic alliance, a cornerstone of US global dominance. By pulling France away from NATO, the UAE could’ve slashed the MIC’s expected payoff, forcing the US to recalibrate its military footprint with a lower utility score.
Think of it as a zero-sum move: Le Pen’s win shrinks US influence, boosting the UAE’s relative power. But the game didn’t stop there. Her skepticism on European unity threatened to unravel the EU, a coalition of players with aligned interests under US sway. A fractured Europe shifts the equilibrium, turning a unified bloc into a multiplayer bargaining game where the UAE could exploit bilateral deals with individual nations. France under Le Pen becomes the first mover, setting off a chain reaction of defections. Economically, the UAE saw a positive-sum opportunity. Le Pen’s disdain for US-led financial systems, like the IMF and World Bank, opened a path to pivot France eastward, trading more with Gulf states and Asia. This defection from the Western economic orbit would’ve cut into the FIC and CIC’s payoffs, as Gulf capital flooded French markets instead. And the UAE’s expected utility here would have been a double win: weakening America’s financial grip while expanding their own. It’s a classic payoff trade-off; sacrifice short-term stability for a higher long-term reward.
Now, factor in the anti-Islamic point. Le Pen’s hardline stance mirrored the UAE’s own crackdown on Islamist movements, a shared dominant strategy to suppress a common threat. The Emirates have long viewed political Islam as a US-backed destabilizer, and a French ally acting independently of Washington could’ve tilted the regional game. By aligning with Le Pen, the UAE reduced America’s ability to play the Islamist card, lowering the variance in their own security outcomes. It’s a cooperative subgame: France and the UAE coordinate to curb a mutual foe, amplifying their joint payoff at America’s expense.
Whichever way you shuffle the deck, the UAE’s bet on Le Pen would have been a masterpiece, had she won. Macron’s win guaranteed MIC and FIC profits, with a high probability of status quo stability. Le Pen, though riskier, offered an asymmetric payoff: a devastating blow to US dominance with minimal downside. What’s the UAE’s cost of failure? A sunk investment, easily absorbed by their deep pockets. The upside? The eventual restructuring of Europe, open to Gulf influence, with America’s MIC, FIC, and CIC taking a blow.
Macron was the US’s low variance choice while Le Pen was the UAE’s high-reward gamble. And this wasn’t going to be a one-off play. Le Pen’s allies, like Italy’s populists, signaled a probable cascade; a tipping point where Europe’s unity crumbles, and the UAE exploits the chaos. In game theoretic terms, it’s a repeated game with exponentially increasing stakes. Each defection weakens the US-led coalition, raising the UAE’s cumulative payoff. They weren’t just funding a candidate; they were engineering a new equilibrium. They didn’t just roll the dice; they almost rigged the table. And they came closer than most realize.
