# UAE-Linked Mercenary Surveillance in London Exposes Foreign Reach Into Western Activist Circles

*Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 10:05 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk*

**Published**: 2026-08-20T10:05:41.985Z (3h ago)
**Category**: intelligence | **Region**: Global
**Importance**: 8/10
**Sources**: OSINT
**Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/15117.md
**Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries

---

**Deck**: A UAE-funded mercenary, previously involved in assassination operations in Yemen, ran a covert surveillance campaign in London in 2016 targeting a British-Iraqi activist tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. The operation shows how Gulf rivalries are exporting their intelligence battles onto Western streets, leaving activists, diaspora leaders and host governments to grapple with security threats they did not design.

Years before foreign interference became a household phrase in Western politics, a quiet operation on London streets offered a stark preview of how far some governments were prepared to go. In 2016, a mercenary funded by the United Arab Emirates, Abraham Golan, conducted covert surveillance on British-Iraqi activist Anas Altikriti, a figure Abu Dhabi viewed as aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood through his think tank, the Cordoba Foundation.

According to accounts of the operation, Golan gathered detailed intelligence on Altikriti’s home, workplace and movements. The surveillance effort did not involve an attack, but it was notable for who was doing the watching. Golan had previously carried out assassination operations in Yemen on behalf of the UAE, giving the London mission a different weight than routine private-investigator work.

For activists like Altikriti and for diaspora communities across Europe, the revelation confirms what many have long suspected: that political and ideological battles among Gulf states do not stop at their borders. Being a critic or perceived opponent of a foreign government, or linked to a movement that another state has listed as a threat, can draw the attention of professionals trained not only to follow but, in other contexts, to kill.

The stakes extend well beyond one man’s security. Host governments such as the United Kingdom face a delicate challenge when friendly or allied states export their intelligence or covert action programs onto their territory. On paper, London maintains strict laws against foreign-directed surveillance and violence; in practice, it must weigh law enforcement and diplomatic fallout, intelligence cooperation with key partners, and the risk of driving such operations deeper underground.

Strategically, the case sheds light on how the UAE and like-minded governments view the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated networks: less as a domestic political rival than as a transnational threat to be countered with the tools of covert action. In Yemen, that has reportedly meant lethal force; in Europe, it has manifested so far as surveillance and pressure. For Western security services, the overlap between counterterrorism cooperation with Gulf partners and the protection of political activists on their own soil is becoming harder to ignore.

The London operation also sits in a wider pattern of foreign targeting of dissidents abroad, from the Saudi killing of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul to Iranian plots against opposition figures in Europe and the United States. Each incident chips away at the assumption that living in a liberal democracy offers full insulation from the security practices of authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states.

For civil society, the chilling effect is real. Think-tank leaders, religious figures and community organizers who work on contentious issues now have to factor in not only online harassment and reputational attacks, but also the possibility that they are being physically followed by people with ties to foreign militaries or security services. That risk can limit speech and association even without a single arrest or attack.

What Western governments do with that knowledge will determine whether such operations remain rare embarrassments or become a normalized feature of urban life. Signals to watch include whether the UK opens or reopens investigations into the 2016 surveillance, if Parliament presses for stricter foreign-agent transparency rules, and whether London quietly tightens the terms of its security cooperation with Gulf states when their activities touch British streets.