A decade ago, I had the opportunity to be among the first Arctic Fellows in the University of Washington’s nascent Arctic Studies programme. This allowed me to explore connections few were considering at the time – such as those between the Middle East and the rapidly changing Arctic region. In January 2014, I published an article arguing that the Arctic should not be viewed solely through the lens of polar science or climate change. It was a region of co-operation and competition, one whose melting ice caps would one day rival traditional maritime routes and whose governance structures would demand greater global engagement. My research identified a unique window for Egypt and Gulf states such as the UAE and Qatar to use their expertise in energy and logistics towards shaping the emerging Arctic order. Today, we are witnessing that strategic foresight take shape in policy. Despite their vast differences in geography and culture, the Arctic and the Arabian Gulf share surprising and under-explored parallels in how they have responded to global energy politics, especially concerning oil and gas. What began for me as a visual connection between Arctic igloos and desert tents unfolded into a <a href="https://jsis.washington.edu/news/strange-history-arctic-arab-gulf/" target="_blank" rel="" title="https://jsis.washington.edu/news/strange-history-arctic-arab-gulf/">deeper realisation</a>: with the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the Gulf Co-operation Council, both regions have formed powerful coalitions. Both have leveraged natural resources to develop their societies, and both deal with the challenge of balancing economic progress with cultural preservation. At the time, what was most striking was uncovering a historical thread that has gone largely unnoticed: the 1973 October War between Egypt and Israel, and the subsequent Arab oil embargo, had a ripple effect on the Arctic. That moment not only reshaped global energy markets, it catalysed the political awakening of the Arctic’s Indigenous communities. In response to increased interest in Arctic oil as a result of the embargo, Inuit leaders mobilised and asserted their rights to their land and resources, leading to the creation of the circumpolar council. This connection between a Middle Eastern geopolitical conflict and Indigenous sovereignty in the Arctic had not been made before, and it revealed just how deeply interconnected global regions truly are. Renewed US interest in the Arctic, demonstrated most starkly by Donald Trump and his administration’s proposal to "buy Greenland", signals a broader recalibration of global maritime priorities. While many unfamiliar with Arctic studies dismissed his idea as impractical, we in the field know it is not entirely implausible. The episode underscores the Arctic’s strategic weight. Greenland, rich in rare earth minerals and geographically pivotal, has become a site of increasing interest not only for the US but also for China and Russia. The Arctic is no longer remote. It is now recognised as a fulcrum in the evolving balance between military security, energy flows and climate governance. The growing involvement of non-Arctic states such as Egypt, the UAE and Qatar in the region reflects an understanding that maritime power is shifting and that active participation in shaping Arctic governance today could have lasting implications for global trade routes and security architecture well into the future. In 2015, Egypt completed an $8 billion expansion of the Suez Canal, doubling its capacity and reaffirming its centrality to global trade. Completed in a single year, the project was part of a long-term plan to increase canal revenue and ensure competitiveness amid shifting maritime dynamics. With the Arctic’s North-west Passage and Northern Sea Route becoming increasingly navigable due to melting ice, some have suggested that this route could emerge as a competitor to the Suez Canal. According to the eight-nation Arctic Council, shipping over arctic routes experienced a 37 per cent increase between 2013 and 2023. Egypt’s response has been twofold: first, to enhance the capabilities of the Suez Canal itself, and second, to pursue co-operation with Arctic nations. Rather than see Arctic shipping as a threat, Egypt has embraced deeper maritime partnerships with Arctic-engaged powers thereby positioning the Suez not as a rival to the Northern Sea Route but as an essential and indispensable artery in a diversified global trade network. The UAE, already a global logistics hub, has actively developed Arctic collaborations. Dubai-based DP World has partnered with Russia’s Rosatom to develop infrastructure along the Northern Sea Route. The goal is to facilitate year-round trade between Asia and Europe through Arctic waters. In January, the UAE took another leap signing an agreement with India to expand co-operation between the Emirates Polar Programme and India’s National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research. The UAE has also deepened ties with Norway, an Arctic nation known for its advanced maritime infrastructure and environmental stewardship. By engaging with Arctic states on their terms, the UAE is building credibility and capability in polar policy spaces. Qatar is increasingly focused on Arctic energy interests. As a major LNG producer with global ambitions, its investments in Arctic energy exploration and maritime shipping align with its broader diversification and foreign policy strategies. To play a meaningful role in shaping Arctic governance and maritime security, Egypt and the Gulf countries should lead with a strategy grounded in respect for Indigenous sovereignty and cultural resonance. Gulf countries, home to tribal values with nomadic traditions and long histories of surviving extreme weather, are uniquely positioned to engage in authentic, peer-level diplomacy with Arctic Indigenous peoples. There are many ways in which Gulf countries can elevate their role as credible, responsible actors in polar affairs while forging partnerships with Indigenous communities: developing joint polar research programmes focused on environmental preservation, sustainable development and Indigenous knowledge systems; leveraging experience in desert infrastructure and climate adaptation as well as expertise in remote logistics, water scarcity and temperature extremes can translate into designing cold-climate port facilities, ice-class vessels, and robust polar supply chains. As extreme weather-vulnerable states with ambitious environmental agendas, Egypt and the Gulf countries should align Arctic development with international environmental goals. Championing a vision for an Arctic rooted in sustainable energy, biodiversity preservation and Indigenous inclusion would amplify their influence in global environmental diplomacy. To support co-operative security in the Arctic, Egypt and the Gulf should engage with Nato and the six Indigenous Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council. Building trust with both Arctic states and Indigenous institutions ensures that maritime security reflects the values of inclusion, sustainability and shared stewardship. The Arctic is no longer a frozen periphery – it is a geopolitical core. Egypt and the Gulf states are not only adapting to this reality, they are helping to shape it. This is not simply a story of changing shipping lanes. It is a new chapter in global strategy—one that spans from the deserts of the Gulf to the ice fields of the Arctic. The symbolism is powerful: the oryx of the Arabian Peninsula and the caribou of the Arctic both embody resilience, mobility and cultural identity. This shared heritage offers a meaningful foundation for building alliances rooted in mutual respect.
