We wake up in Dubai. We check the news, statements, tensions rising across the region. Are we in war? Why are we in it? Did we choose this? What about safety? About stability? About business? And at the same time, we're watching something else unfold. A narrative from the Western media, headlines, commentary. Dubai is finished. The UAE is exposed. The Middle East is on fire. And then there are us living here, me and you, experts, residents, professionals. We started to push back, posting, responding, defending reality, sometimes intelligently and sometimes very emotional and suddenly it becomes noise between fear, pride, speculations, and in some cases envy. The truth gets lost. And let's be clear about one thing from the beginning. We're not here to respond to haters. That's not what we do in Dubai. In Dubai, we wake up on Monday and we work. We build. We invest. And today, we're going to do the same. I'm a lawyer because behind all this noise, there are legal questions that actually matter. Is this really a war? What does this even mean? International law. What happened to business, to contracts, to investors who are now asking many questions? These are legal, structural and economic realities. That's why we bring here Dr. Habib Almulla. Let's put everything aside and ask one question. Is international law dead? Welcome back to the jurist podcast. This is the first episode that we shoot since we started getting missiles and rockets and drones and stuff that we've never experienced and never heard of before here in Dubai. We welcome for the second time Dr. Habib Almulla. Thank you very much and >> thank you for hosting me. >> Thank you very much for coming and for your time. We know that you are very busy and very uh occupied with a lot of media and everybody is asking you so many questions and I actually chose to ask you a completely different question today. Is international law dead? What's going on? The short answer is no. But its credibility has been eroding. I don't think we are seeing the collapse of international law. I mean the rules exist. The institutions are still functioning. But in my opinion, the real issue is not the violation of the law. It's the selective enforcement. What we are witnessing is a set of law that is being applied when convenient and ignored when costly. So we are moving from a system that is based on rule to a system that is based on power and I believe that is the issue that we are facing with international law. It's quite significant to witness such phase in the world. I mean actually we what we learned at at law school that the rule of law and the spirit of the law and justice and equality and seeing now that selectively the rules are applied is is not something that we can take lightly as lawyers. How do you feel about this as a lawyer? because I understand that you practice every day and still go to court uh besides all the management that you're doing and you speak to and to the other younger lawyers and you mentor them. How do you feel how easy it is to just say that we protect the law but in practice we see this happening in the world? Yeah, it's not frankly it's not an easy thing. I mean I can feel the frustration that the public in general are seeing today. I mean whenever I post something and say well the international law says so an article this of the United Nations charter and the commission on international law and I get comments like uh it doesn't exist uh it's useless doesn't apply to certain players. Uh but that's correct but that has been the case. I mean people I think tend to forget that that has been the case not today not since the UN was formed but even during the League of Nations and even before that whoever has power can to some extent manipulate the law international law. Now does this mean that we don't need it? No, at the end of the day, you see that even super cars like the US when it wants sometimes to do certain acts, it goes to the United Nation, it gets a security council resolution, it meets that legitimacy. If we can put this into a form of resemblance uh and for people who understand or have read the history uh we have the Ambassi dynasty that ruled for 500 years and historians divided into two parts. The first part where it was strong and powerful and then the second part where it was it existed but it was weak. During the second part, there were other strong players who were actually managing the Arab the Islamic world, the Saljuk at one time, the at another time. But still the Friday prayers were called under the name of the Khalif. The war were declared under his name. They always needed his blessings to do any act because he provided legitimacy. Although in reality he had no power. I think that is a good resemblance of what international law plays today. I I I now I'm getting to get the picture. But I want to ask you now we are not even in a situation where the war is declared. So let's go back to the legal side. We put the emotions What is the situation right now? How does the international law classified an armed conflict without a declaration of war? Okay, I mean technically there is no war. War has not been declared. If you declare war, there are certain actions and certain consequences. for example, uh general mobilization, uh martial law could be applied, uh wide powers for the executive. We don't see any of that. But in reality uh continuous use of force constitute an armed conflict irrespective of what the players label it war or otherwise. So I don't think the labeling is important but what the civilian population are suffering from or are facing is the relevant point irrespective of what labels we put it war armed conflict special operation I think that's irrelevant I think here in the UAE also as as you mentioned the civilians we always felt that we are a neutral party we don't getting conflicts in around the world. We always thought that we here in the UAE are focused on life and we want to create good stuff and want to create good future and we feel that we are neutral but on a legality on on a legal uh side. What determines whether a state is illegally neutral to a certain conflict because I feel that we are not part of this conflict between the US and Iran. I I think what you are trying to hint to or indirectly ask is whether hosting US military bases makes uh the Gulf countries or you in particular to this conflict. I >> I have an opinion about that but I would like to know yours. >> Yeah, the simple answer is no. And that's not an opinion. That's the stand of international law. the International Law Commission and the International Court of Justice in a famous case of uh Nicaragua uh put a threshold that the passive hosting of military bases particularly when these military bases were hosted prior to the conflict. So that timing is of importance and particularly when there is no any operational command on these bases does not make the hosting state a party to the conflict. Now I know Iran is saying otherwise but let us take Iran's argument to its conclusion. If we adopt what Iran is saying, it means that any country in the world which is hosting a US military base and there are many around the world is a party to any war that the US declares and I mean this kind of argument doesn't it it collapse it destroys the whole concept of international law and has no legal background. The US has more than 750 military bases around the world in more than 150 countries. So I that's exactly my opinion is like if if you are going to blame one state because they have a military base there, you're going to have to blame 150 countries for every single war or armed conflict that the US is going to, which makes absolutely no sense. totally agree and I understand but to be very honest I I'm let's say the normal person who's living his life they don't really care about the politics and they don't care about the moving um parties in any political conflict we as civilians um care about the infrastructure where we live care about our personal um interests and I can't travel because of an armed conflict. I was um hosted uh by uh by a Ukrainian you um YouTuber who lives in Ukraine. He's a 33 years old gentleman and he is not part in any conflict and he's not military guy. He's just a business guy and he cannot travel because the laws in Ukraine uh disallow him from traveling if he's between the age of a certain bracket and he's healthy because he can be anytime mobilized. So what I really I'm asking do these attacks on civilians and strategic infrastructure qualify as an armed attack under the international law? Can I as a civilian have the right to object on such things because it really affects me? Yeah. Uh see the stand of international law is very clear according to the additional protocol of the Geneva Conventions. Any attack on objects that are indispensable for the survival of civilians is a violation of international law. Uh for example, attacks on power plants, uh water systems, food supplies. In addition to that, the intentional targeting of infrastructure which are purely civilian in nature that are not being used for any military activities like ports, airports and so forth constitutes even a war crime under the room statute. So the stand of international law is very clear. What Iran has been doing is a violation of international law. Is an act of aggression. You even even if and I'm saying a big if here. Even if Gulf countries were party to this conflict, you cannot categorically target civilian infrastructure. Period. Can a state be held legally liable or responsible to the actions of another state which it maintains political and diplomatic relations with? Am I at any point going to be held liable to the actions of any country that I have diplomatic relations for? So if I don't know tomorrow uh Egypt went to war against Libya, is the UAE going to be held liable because Egypt and the UAE have diplomatic relations? Is this normal? Absolutely not. Uh diplomatic relations when states are at war at most may may cause reputational damage. That's if we take that argument to the extreme. But legal liability absolutely not. And I I think again the argument uh that Iran is posing is unsubstantiated has no legal feat whatsoever. I'm going to ask you the question in a different way. Same but it will give a different message. If a state normalizes relations with another state, does that make it morally or legally responsible for everything or anything that the other state do? Again, no, absolutely not. So, what what's wrong with the Arabic media narrative? Because I don't know, are we singled out here? Because this I also see other media outlets in the Arab region who are siding with the wrong uh party in this conflict with the aggressor just because we have normalized or here in the UAE we have normalized relations with another party both of them are in conflict there are two answers I think which or or two points that I need to clarify here let us take it the first one and then I'll come to the second uh heart two wrongs don't make right. Uh the problem I think with or the problem the argument that some present here that as long as you are attacking Israel everything else you do is right. So if I criticize Israel, if I bombard Israel, then that makes whitens all my other actions. And this kind of argument I can't I mean even comprehend that comes from scholars, forget the common people, media outlets. I mean it's like saying in in in private law that for example if you can if you kill a thief you have the right that justifies you to cause whatever damage you want to any other people for from theft killing raping everything is I mean that is wrong this is wrong exactly one wrong does not make the other one Right. So that's the the the first one. Coming to your question with regard to the diplomatic relations and I think maybe you're referring to the Abraham Accords. Abraham Accords creates diplomatic relations, not security obligations. And that's clear. But of course, in a midst of all this turmoil, particularly when a country like Iran understands that what it is doing is wrong, legally wrong, morally wrong. It just tried to throw any kind of argument in order that to mix the cards and confuse the people and say, "Oh, UI has uh ties with Israel, so it has to be bad." Uh they are hosting uh US military bases, so we have the right to target them. It it's it's bizarre that the arguments that are being presented is bizarre. And I have to say I have never expected that respectable media outlets in this region would even consider this kind of argument. Since you mentioned the Abraham Accord, I would like to know what did we sign up for? I know we have an embassy and they have an embassy and there are diplomatic relations with Israel, but what did we really sign up for? As I said basically diplomatic relations uh certain economic ties, cooperation and irrespective whether you agree with that approach or not uh UI has a narrative and I think in my opinion they did not manage to uh sell this narrative properly. Uh from the UI's point of view, we have been in war with Israel since 1948 and it led to nothing. Every time we are losing more land. Uh the Palestinian people are the most people who are suffering because of this situation. And the narrative is simple. This road has failed. Why not try this route? Let us try it. Let us build economic ties with Israel. Let have let Israel has certain economic interest in the region in the stability of the region which would ultimately at one point will lead to a situation where a kind of a solution would be found. Now it has been only a few years that this route has taken place. So we have not seen the outcome of this narrative and this path yet but it's something that could be tried. Uh now whether it's right whether it's wrong it's a different story. I mean time will tell 50 years of war was wrong. not accepting the UN the first resolution on the division of the land of Palestine. People today will say wrong, people at that time thought rejecting it was the right decision. But I think time will will prove uh who who was right and who was wrong. And I think me personally in in general and I do this with all my decisions, I might be wrong. I might be actually wrong. But I need to try and I need to try everything. As long as my heart is in the right place, my intentions are positive and and and right, then I I'm entitled to try everything. Um, why is the UEE name being dragged into all this? Why are we getting the most hit? Is it because geographically we exist in this region? Is it because my understanding is that we are doing everything for peace and at the same time we are doing everything for business and we want to build life. We want to build great economy and we are winning. We want to build the best uh buildings, the best tourism and the best economy and we're winning in that as well. And um we just exist here and we are getting heat from both sides. I think you nailed it. The fact that we are winning, we are successful in let us being number one. Uh I think it's a mixture of jealousy, hatred. Uh let us not forget today we are not competing with regional capitals. Today Dubai in particular is competing with London and New York period. I mean I was recent interview and uh reporter a headline from New York Times is this the end of Dubai. I mean imagine New York Times half a page headline. >> Yes. >> End of Dubai. 20 years ago if you have asked an American citizen where is Dubai or told him from Dubai he wouldn't recognize. >> He didn't know. >> He didn't know. So I think part of it is that we are becoming the victims of our success. We have been po posing a serious threat to established capitals like London. I mean it's not a secret. People have been moving in large numbers from London to Dubai before this uh conflict started. I mean we at our firm we were seeing like three to four uh inquiries every week of people trying to move to Dubai. Dubai airport surpassed Heathro uh became number one. So of course I mean when you see this and then suddenly something happens you will bring out all your uh feelings. And this is not the first time by the way that this happened in the region. I mean if again going back I think history is a good example although it's in a different context but again you're Egyptian you know when Muhammad Alibasha started building the Egyptian army it's it was the beginning of what we call the renaissance in Egypt and now he expanded he became so powerful that he was competing with France and the colonial powers and England colonial powers at that time and he was said oh no no no this is too big you and grow originally but to compete with us. No. And they started attacking him and trying bring him into the borders. I think what UI has done is something similar in its financial uh sphere in its in its global uh recognition. And I was that day with uh uh the banker and he had this weird idea or wild idea I would say even that I think all this war was created by the US to destroy the recognition and the status of the UEE because we became so successful, so powerful financially. that uh we started to pose a threat that that's right or not. I think at least both parties Iran and some uh media outlets in the west at least have that wish. Iran from a this different perspective I mean it's a failed state apart from its military damage that it can cause. So there is a very successful model next to it. And of course when you see this and you fear that people will try to compare how state huge state with all the resources, population, education that of Iran is living in this misery while you have a small state that is so successful. West of course from their envy. Um I think the last 10 years have really proven everything you're saying and it's I don't even see it just the UAE I've seen Qatar doing amazing work last 10 years Saudi uh Egypt and I've seen many places even Bahrain in the in the last 10 years have developed a lot and it made leaders like Muhammad bin Salman saying that this is the new Middle East sorry the Middle East is the new Europe and uh and and huge Emirati figures and the leaders of this country have been around the world being praised for what they did in in a very short time. And yes, this conflict might make a pose, but I always say it, no one masters coming back like the UAE. True. Honestly, I've seen it in 2008. I've seen after 2008 and I've seen after COVID and no one masters coming back like United Arab Emirates. >> Yes. >> Um this will take me to another question. Did you see this conflict um getting the GCC countries closer? Do we see more unity in this crisis? Definitely. I think we are seeing uh more unity, stronger bond between the GCC because I think everyone feels that we're in the same boat. The when the Iran's targeting it doesn't differ between Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE, they are treating them all as uh the same. Uh and I think also that the GCC before this conflict is will not be the same GCC after this conflict. I think we'll see shift in policies, directions. Uh but one thing I think uh this conflict has proven is that the GCC is stronger than what everyone thought of. I mean I've heard it myself many times that yes it's very positive flourishing active but the minute there is one bomb this is going to be a ghost town. And as we were talking last night, I was going to a restaurant. I had to wait 20 minutes to get a table. >> Yes. >> Uh this has shown that people living in the the residents I'm talking about the national the residents. >> Yeah. >> Feel affiliated to this place. Many chose not to leave. Many chose to stay. That's one that the investment that the country has done in its military structure has proven useful at this time. I mean 100% interception of missiles is unprecedented. Yes, we had the issue with the drones that's a different story but missiles 100% interception. I think that's by any record is an outstanding uh achievement and it showed that there is stronger than what it looked on its surface. Are we looking at failure of diplomacy? Do you think United Nations is actually doing what it should do or do you still believe in it and diplomacy this is a proof that diplomacy must prevail and must actually take place United Nation does what its players want it to do so it doesn't act on its own I mean that's the starting point I don't think it's failure of diplomacy I mean as We talk now there are discussions happening between us and the Iranians and I think they're meeting in Pakistan. Uh in fact again if you look into history the most durable settlements happened under intensive conflicts. You have the Korean war for example. You have the war between Iran and Iraq. uh when the uh battle was or the fights were intensifying they had discussions they had a settlement that is going till today. So I think if this time if a settlement is reached it will be a kind of a sustained settlement that I think everyone will benefit from. Do you believe that the talks that is happening right now might actually uh end this conflict? Yes. But as analysts say, the parties need to reach to what it is called hurting mutual hurting stalemate where both parties recognize that the cost of continuing this conflict is higher than reaching a settlement. And until the parties reach that line or cross that line, diplomatic efforts are more of declarations rather than solutions. I'll take you to another uh topic because I want to I want to go back to legal because I asked you a little bit too too many political questions. I've seen the reaction of the western media which I really am very disappointed with. I've seen the reaction of the tourists who uh came here to the UAE and uh and u posted so many um I I don't even want to say fake but some of them are completely exaggerated uh content and they were taken very seriously by the western media and I've seen fake news going on around and I've seen the western media adopting and taking these fake news and fake videos and what is their responsibility? I mean for all the information, misinformation, rumors and the biased statements against Dubai in particular and the UAE in general. Are there no laws in UK to regulate these guys? To be very honest, I mean, I'm a bit offended of how freedom of speech is really okay when you're attacking everybody around you, but freedom of speech has limits when you're attacking uh the West. Yeah. I mean, I fully agree with this uh fake and I I would use the word fake rather even exaggerated. I mean, uh, I saw in a western media outlet, uh, a video of a building being burned, saying, "Oh, uh, City Bank in Dubai is under fire." >> I said, "I've never seen this building of City Bank in Dubai. >> Does it not exist here?" >> It was a building in in Bahin. Unfortunately whether it's ignorance whether it's intentional we have seen this trend and I think even established media outlets fill into it now when it's come to responsibility again international law is is clear if uh media narrative uh incite attack on civilians or or civilian infrastructure or dehumanize civilians, there could be a liability. And there is a a very well-known case by the International Court of Justice in uh Rwanda's case where uh they media outlets were charged because they were in fact promoting a kind of even a genocide. >> Yes. uh now whether that would be applicable here I think it's a it's a different question uh but even if there is no legal responsibility maybe has its own responsibility I mean at the end of the day if you want to gain people's confidence and trust you need to be credit worthy when you spread rumors like this where you act like I don't know populists of course you lose credibility and I think this is time for the GCC to establish uh solid media outlets that can uh address the western audience. Katar I think has been successful with Jazzer and I think it is time for UEI and other GCC countries to do the same. Reflecting on the same point where a media outlet um exaggerate and push the public view into a direction that hurts the UAE or hurts Dubai or hurts any other GCC country in its economy because we get affected by the I don't know if if you're going to scare the world from the situation here. Tourism stop and this has economic effects. Airlines stop because this has economic effect. Me as a lawyer and you as well, our work will stop because the transactions and the deals and the future of business in this region get affected. We basically don't lose reputation. We lose cash on the short term. Can a private enterprise or a company sue a media outlet outside for tarnishing the reputation of the country because we are directly affected. See this question in particular has I think different angles too. Uh media outlets can manipulate financial markets and I think we have seen recently some news about this timing of certain decisions and in the media and how that manipulated uh financial markets. It can cause panic. Uh it can in fact even lead to escalation of activities. some some misinformation if it's spread for example say oh UI is uh there is a rocket coming out from the UI attacking Iran it may lead to escalation >> of course >> so it has consequences now whether those media outlets can be held responsible I think it's a different story has not been tested it worth while testing it I think if someone has been directly damaged uh I think it's worth trying that route and see if that principle can be established because media has okay freedom of speech no one is talking about yes you have the right to do freedom of speech but when you >> intentionally uh spread false information uh which leads to damage then we go to the basic rule of law wrongful act cause >> cause and damage >> yes Um, capitalizing on this point, let's say the the the the responsibility of the media is questionable, but the responsibility of the aggressor state is not questionable. We see rockets, missiles and drones coming out from a specific state towards us and this damage is uh documented in many ways. what is the responsibility or how far can we held the state of the aggressor uh responsible of material damages because we've seen civilians getting affected. Yes. Again, we go to the basic simple rule wrongful act. I think with the pass of the United Nations uh security council resolution lately that condemned the acts of Iran being aggression. I think the wrongful act has been established. Uh Iran is in violation of international law by these attacks. So that part I think now is solidly established. There are two more things we need to one is causation and the actual damage and I have asked I think the way to do this because the claims need to be done uh on a level of state-to-state an individual doesn't have a direct claiming right so even individual rights need to be put in a file which the states adopts it uh I've asked for uh the formation what we call the national committee to assess these damages to collect all the evidences, calculate the damage, make the standard uh applications for individuals to submit it to >> uh this committee and then you need to take it to the next level of seeking compensation. Now this can be done in various uh routes. One is a bilateral arrangement like what happened between the US uh Iran claims tribunal. >> Yeah. >> For the hostages of the American embassy. Most probably Iran will not accept or not to concede to this. Then you have two more options. one is going to the security council obtain a resolution to form a committee like what happened in Kuwait and Iraq uh committee was formed and I think they looked at like 26 million claims between state and individuals. >> Yeah. >> And the other third thing would be to go to the international court of justice to establish Iran's uh liability. But I think that is in my opinion going to come. Uh the damage that Iran has caused to the Gulf states is huge. I mean there attacks on the gas installations in Qatar on itself. Uh they have been estimated more than 20 billion and then if someone has to pay for that they have to pay for that. I will tell you honestly that's my opinion at least. Um I think a few years ago I met a very smart lawyer in um I was in a conference in uh in Warso in Poland and he was promoting his services to private uh individuals like individual um people who have been affected by the attacks of the Russian state uh in Ukraine. and he was collecting these claims because there are a tremendous amount of uh Russian assets in Europe and they're able to seize these assets. Going back to us here in the UAE only, I'm not talking about Bahrain and Qatar and Saudi because there are Iranian assets or Iranian um state controlled assets in an indirect way and I think we understand each other when I say this. Um, can we do the same here? Can people who got affected directly start claims and can we reach the level where the Iranian state will be held accountable to its action by seizing their controlled assets in the region? >> Yeah. See, it's not unprecedented. We have seen seizure of uh Russian state assets in Europe. We have seen seizure of assets in Ukraine. Uh in fact, Ukraine went even one step further of confiscating the assets, not just Caesar. Europe stop short at seizure only. Now we have to differentiate between three types of assets. Assets that are stateowned and I think there is no issue that those could be seized. I'm not sure that Irania as a state has any assets abroad. Then there are assets for agencies and institutions owned or companies owned or controlled by the uh Iranian government like for example uh bank that is 100% owned by the Iranian state that I think are where the most of the action can come uh seizing those assets and then you have assets of individual ual Iranian individuals and I think neither the UN or any other country want to seize those assets. However, in Europe in particular, they seize the assets of individuals who are closely connected with the Russian government. So I think there is the area where we need to see how we can evaluate that situation. But in order to do this, you need either uh rule from for example resolution from uh security council or you need to pass a national law as Ukraine did for example. What are the legal remedies are available for individuals and businesses whose assets are affected by measures targeting property directly or indirectly linked with a foreign state whether inside or outside the UAE. As I said, these claims need to be quantified by the state and put in a file that the state will pursue it. However, we have a president. Canada passed a law. I think it's called justice for the victims of terrorism. So, how the system works? The law has been passed. There is there is a list that the I think it's called the governor. The governor can add countries to that list. And guess who's on that list? The first country, Iran, of course. And then individuals can go to the Canadian courts. So the jurisdiction was brought to the Canadian courts and file a claim saying that we are victims of an act that was sponsored by Iran. And in fact, the Canadian court s couple of cases. One attack for example was uh the heirs of uh someone who died because of uh an attack by uh Hamas and the court awarded saying that yes Hamas is sponsored by Iran. So Iran is spons responsible for actions of Hamas. These are the victims and awarded them. Now once you get that award you go to the next stage of execution. if there are assets in Canada for example. If not, you can get a kind of what I would call NAVA injunction. Let let me ask you a question that a lot of uh UAE residents like me and UAE nationals who live here uh are asking themselves. Should be we should we be worried about our safety or about the business or about the future here? Short answer, straightforward, no. I think uh uh the initial shock yes was a shock. I mean we never thought that we are going to be under rockets and missiles and fire and so on. >> But we have seen how the system functions full interception institutions work civil defense is there hospitals all businesses governments properly functioning. There was no interruption. No, I mean in certain countries you may find looting and collapse of rule of law. Nothing of that happens. Zero. Which show that it's an efficient system. It's a solid system. It's working. And I think people realize this and they're going back to their normal life. So there is nothing to worry about. And what's your advice to businessmen and business owners? um what what should they do at this time of crisis? See the worst decision you can take is to take a decision when you are under panic because then most likely if not 100% your decision will be wrong and we have seen in cases for example when certain crisis happens in other jurisdictions uh I'm talking about for example law firms or companies that they immediately start cutting uh their cost uh firing people and then when things started better they struggle to go back into business again. I think what you need uh to do is to have legal clarity. What are your contracts? How are they uh structured, organized? This you need to have what I would call a financial planning especially on the cash flow. Okay, how much cash flow do I have? Where there are the necessities? Where are the non necessities? And I I I would say also uh decent planning ahead. So how do I need to work from home? I need to work from the office. How I where are the opportunities? And and believe me in every situation there are opportunities whether it's a business, whether it's a law firm, whether it's any kind, there are always opportunities in these situations. You know a few days ago I made a video and um because I was watching the western media with their narratives and at the same time I was watching even influencer videos who are running away and say saying uh sell sell your investments and stuff. So I made a video and I said don't become our next opportunity and I explained is that people who run away at the times of crisis they lose and this margin that they lose becomes the opportunity for the believers. >> Exactly. who will stay and who will hire this employee who got fired but he's a great asset or who will buy this property on 25 or 30% less because it's going to bounce back because again no one bounce back and come back better than the UAE we master this game we know how it works >> we saw some strong public figures from the GCC like Mr. And he said something like why are we dragged into this war and he was addressing this statement to a specific country which is United States of America. Why are you dragging us to your war? Uh what what do you what do you think of this perspective as well? I think Mr. Hapur's remarks are accurate and correct. I mean this is a situation that we were not consulted uh we didn't participate and suddenly we find ourselves in the midst of hostile activities between two nations that got nothing to do with it. At the end of the day the US is a strategic partner for the UAE. It will continue to be this. I mean for various reason financially, military uh technology wise and so on. Iran is a neighboring country. I mean we are governed by the rule of geography. It's not going to disappear. We have lived with Iran for >> many many years and we'll continue to live with it. Whether it's this regime, whether it's a different regime, whether it's the same regime with a different direction. The only thing is that we ask parties to abide by the law and to respect neighborhood, respect international law. We have no bad intentions towards any country and we don't want any country to have bad intentions towards us. At the end of the day, it is a very clear message. We are a country that has a very clear intention. We build for the future. We want businesses to flourish. We want people to live peace peacefully and we want people to live well and to enjoy life and to have the best uh infrastructure and the best life ever. And the rule of law is very important whether internal or external with our neighbors or with our allies. And when we succeed and when we win so big, we sometimes get burned by our success as you said. And this success can make haters or envious uh media all around whether from the east or from the west or sometimes from people who are still living among and around us and our message is very clear. We do nothing else but work and we are peacemakers and we are life lovers and we would like to continue our life in this way. Um my final very hard question for you. What's the lesson that we learned in the UAE out of all this? I think the most important lesson that uh we have learned is that we need to be ready and I think what the government has done that it was ready for this day. When the day came, we were ready. We absorbed it. We protected our population. we protected our country and I think that's the best lesson that we all learned. >> Dr. Habib, it's always a pleasure and it's always an amazing insight that we get from you. Your opinions are very very valuable to us and to our audience and um if you want to um give a message to uh your team and to your family during this hard time, please feel free. I I think it was a third or fourth day of this issue. Uh I had a meeting with our whole own staff and of course I assure them everything is fine your safety is the most important thing but then I told them one thing in Arabic we have statement which says in a simple English there is always opportunity and crisis. And I told him I see this opportunity. I see this practice of I see this that we are going to benefit from. There are certain areas that I can see from now that are opportunities for us. Those who decide to stay in the long run they are going to benefit. Absolutely. And with this I uh thank you very much again for coming and for being with us. And this is uh the jurist podcast. I hope you enjoy it. I hope you benefit from it. And I hope you got some assurance and some clarity whether on the current situation or with the legalities around it. If you have any question to me or to Dr. Khabib, please feel free to do that and please follow the jurist podcast. Share what you like uh of these statements and subscribe to our channel if you want us to bring more valuable successful leaders in the legal field. Thank you very much.