DMB accelerates electrification by scaling up manufacturing at Middle East Energy
To better support key industries like electric vehicles, healthcare, and renewable energy, DMB is expanding its production capabilities. This includes adding a new line for smaller wire sizes and increasing taping and conforming operations. DMB is also boosting production of ACSS conductors, which help make power networks stronger and more efficient. These upgrades will modernize infrastructure, making it more reliable and ready to meet future connectivity and energy needs.
Mohamed Al Ahmedi, Chief Executive Officer of DMB, said, "We are focused on providing solutions that support the region's electrification and enhance the reliability and capacity of power transmission networks. Our expanded manufacturing capabilities will enable us to deliver high-quality products essential for meeting the growing global demand for sustainable infrastructure. By increasing ACSS conductor production, DMB is strengthening its role as a key contributor to power networks worldwide. This expansion, in hand with our sustained investment in regional supply chains, not only reinforces our market presence but also fuels our ambition for regional growth and innovation."
To further solidify its role as a global industry leader, DMB is expanding its distribution channels, ensuring its high-quality solutions are more accessible to partners worldwide. This strategic growth brings DMB closer to its customers, providing them with faster, more efficient access to essential materials that drive industrial progress. By enhancing its global reach, DMB continues to strengthen critical sectors with reliable, high-performance products, reinforcing its position as a trusted partner in infrastructure development.
DMB's approach is not limited to its manufacturing expertise. By investing in advanced technology, research, and development, the company is committed to creating solutions that not only address current demands but also foresee future challenges. This forward-looking strategy allows DMB to stay ahead in an evolving market, aligning with global standards while supporting regional sustainability targets.
As the UAE continues to enhance its infrastructure for renewable energy sources, DMB's products will be crucial in addressing the urgent needs for renewable resources, capacity, and reliability. DMB is strengthening its global presence by expanding its reach while continuing to meet the demands of various industries, including automotive, healthcare, packaging and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump's strategy for Middle East 'peace' is built on Israeli dominance. It will fail
The Trump administration is attempting to reshape the Middle East after launching strikes on Iran last month, adopting a strategy characterised by "peace through strength" and "commerce, not chaos". While this approach is presented as pragmatic, it risks destabilising the region in favour of maximising US and Israeli military and economic advantage. President Donald Trump considers himself an "expert dealmaker", believing that calculated military strikes create leverage for diplomatic gains - particularly by pressuring Iran back to the negotiating table. His strategy emphasises overwhelming but short-term military force to achieve defined goals, avoiding prolonged entanglements or "forever wars". It also marks a rejection of nation-building, shifting the burden of regional stability onto local partners. Though the strategic value of Middle Eastern energy resources has declined for the US, the region remains crucial - perhaps even more so under the current administration. As Med This Week reports, three primary factors shape recent US actions. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The first is the ideological alliance between far-right governments in the US and Israel, which transcends the traditional "special relationship" and reflects a deeper political and strategic alignment. The administration also views Israeli hegemony as a vehicle for regional stability, envisioning a dominant "Greater Israel", backed by overwhelming US support, capable of unilaterally enforcing peace and marginalising Iran. At its core, the Trump doctrine envisions a Greater Israel, backed by US power, enforcing peace and sidelining Iran Finally, personal financial interests - particularly those of Trump and his family - were prominently on display during his recent Gulf visit. The immediate objective of the 12-day war was to dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Trump declared key sites "destroyed" or "shut down", hailing the campaign as a critical blow against a perceived existential threat. (A recent US intelligence report found that only one of the three targeted nuclear facilities was completely destroyed, with the others expected to be operational again within months.) These military operations have significantly reshaped regional power dynamics, pushing forward the Trump administration's regional strategy: normalising relations between Israel and Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, and potentially extending to Oman, Indonesia, Qatar and even Syria. Yet this pursuit of realignment remains constrained by Israel's ongoing war on Gaza. A ceasefire and the release of Israeli hostages are seen as prerequisites for advancing and expanding normalisation. Israel: A hegemonic power? The US has demonstrated its willingness to act unilaterally with overwhelming force - particularly through the use of "bunker-buster" bombs on Iranian nuclear sites. This was portrayed as a show of unmatched American might, aimed not only at Iran but also as a deterrent to rivals like China and Russia. America's costly backing for Israel is enabling China's unstoppable rise Read More » Meanwhile, Israel has sought to project itself as a formidable military force with deep intelligence reach into Iran's nuclear and security infrastructure. Some Israeli officials have even claimed the country has joined the ranks of global powers, though the strikes, which killed large numbers of civilians, have drawn widespread criticism and raised questions about the legitimacy of such claims. Yet the question remains: can Israel truly become a hegemonic power in the region? Despite its recent operations and short-term tactical gains, Israel faces structural and political barriers to sustained dominance. It remains heavily reliant on US military, diplomatic and economic support. Deep-rooted regional conflicts persist, particularly the unresolved Palestinian issue, which continues to inflame public opinion and obstruct meaningful diplomatic engagement. Key regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt are unlikely to accept Israeli expansionism or hegemony. Meanwhile, Iran's political will to pursue its nuclear ambitions appears undiminished, with some analysts suggesting that the recent strikes may ultimately accelerate, rather than deter, its nuclear development. Iran's leadership, especially Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is unlikely to negotiate from a position of perceived weakness. The recent military escalation follows the US "maximum pressure" campaign and its hostile stance towards Iran after withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iran nuclear deal, in 2018. Together, these developments have reinforced Iranian mistrust and further narrowed the space for diplomacy. Furthermore, there is no credible assessment that the recent strikes have permanently crippled Iran's nuclear programme. Many analysts believe any setbacks will last only months, not years, and that Iran will simply shift operations deeper underground. Roadblocks to dominance The unresolved Palestinian question remains the greatest obstacle to expanding the Abraham Accords and achieving regional peace. Saudi Arabia has made its position clear: it demands an unambiguous commitment to establishing a Palestinian state. Yet the Netanyahu government - shaped by ultra-right forces - prioritises military dominance over meaningful negotiations, particularly in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel's military assault on Gaza has inflamed Arab public opinion, making normalisation politically costly for Gulf leaders. Without a clear post-war vision for Gaza and a comprehensive ceasefire, Israeli dominance is unsustainable. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war Regional actors, especially in the Gulf, fear appearing complicit with a state widely viewed as violating Arab rights. Israel's prolonged war in Gaza and lack of a political roadmap have tarnished its global image, leading to growing international condemnation and even weakening support from traditional allies like the EU (though it declined to take any action). Israel's military assault on Gaza has inflamed Arab public opinion, making normalisation politically costly for Gulf leaders The erosion of diplomatic support for Israel - alongside the continued refusal to hold it accountable for its war crimes - has only furthered its isolation, undermining any bid for genuine regional leadership. Meanwhile, Israeli national security doctrine under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu relies on military superiority as the only guarantee of peace. But even claimed military "victories" come at staggering human and economic costs - both for Palestinians and for Israelis. Even if external military actions temporarily consolidate internal support - as seen in Iran - they often fail to trigger regime change or long-term stability. Decades of foreign interventions have shown that externally imposed political transitions are more likely to produce chaos than lasting peace. Regional and internal pressures have compounded the challenges facing Israel's hegemonic ambitions. Gulf states, wary of Iranian collapse, fear the resulting chaos, humanitarian crisis, refugee flows and nuclear proliferation. Domestically, Netanyahu faces mounting pressure amid public frustration over his failure to secure a full ceasefire in Gaza or release all hostages - exposing internal fractures that challenge any coherent long-term strategy. Crucially, Israel has not established a legitimate Palestinian governing authority to assume control of Gaza, nor has it succeeded in imposing external or co-opted leadership. The result is chaos and the emergence of new resistance movements - mirroring US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regional defiance Saudi Arabia has remained unwilling to embrace Israeli ambitions, insisting that any normalisation must be preceded by a concrete commitment to establishing a Palestinian state. However, Israel's aggression has made further agreements politically untenable. Gulf states must act to avoid Israel's war on Iran spiralling into chaos Hadi Kahalzadeh Read More » Some Gulf countries are reassessing their approach to Israel, questioning whether its actions foster stability or provoke further conflict. Many now prefer a long-term weakening of both Iran and Israel, rather than a decisive victory for either, to reduce threats to their own regimes. Saudi and Emirati strategies of hedging - including outreach to Iran - suggest a desire to avoid taking sides in regional conflicts, reducing their willingness to join an anti-Iran alliance led by Israel. Turkey, too, is unlikely to accept Israeli regional dominance. What was once a "golden age" of cooperation in the 1990s has devolved into mutual suspicion. Turkish leaders have grown increasingly vocal in their condemnation of Israel's actions, particularly in Gaza, and Ankara views Israel's deepening alliances with Greece and Cyprus as a threat. Turkey continues to build its own military and missile capabilities and asserts regional influence in Syria. It also positions itself as a potential mediator in Israeli-Iranian tensions - an indication of its desire to act independently. A fragile vision Trump's military campaign may have weakened Iran's nuclear ambitions and its regional allies, but long-term regional stability remains elusive. The current "peace" is more accurately described as a fragile truce than a durable shift. At its core, Israeli military superiority has failed to deliver political solutions. Without addressing the Palestinian question, stabilising Gaza, and navigating complex regional rivalries, lasting peace is impossible. Even if armed groups are temporarily subdued, the region's capacity to generate new forms of resistance endures Even if armed resistance groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas are temporarily subdued, the region's capacity to generate new forms of resistance endures. Israel may maintain its military edge, but it will continue to struggle for legitimacy and leadership in the Middle East. As violations of international law by the US and Israel mount, the message appears clear: "Only the weak follow the rules." Such a precedent erodes collective security and undermines any meaningful regional consensus. Real, enduring peace will not come through dominance alone - it demands diplomacy, justice, and the courage to confront the root causes of conflict. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye
a day ago
- Middle East Eye
IMF warns against Egypt's military dominance over economy
In arguably its bluntest report to date, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that Egypt's military-controlled economic model is crippling private sector growth, deterring investors and keeping the country in a cycle of debt and underperformance. In its long-delayed staff report for the fourth review of Egypt's loan programme, the IMF noted: 'The economic landscape is dominated by public-driven investments, an uneven playing field, and state-owned entities, including military ones.' The IMF further warned that military-owned firms continue to enjoy 'preferential treatment', including tax breaks, cheap land and privileged access to credit and public contracts. Such privileges, the 202-page report notes, have continued to sideline private sector competitors and distort the market. While Cairo has taken some economic steps - such as floating the pound, slashing subsidies and launching a state ownership policy - the IMF says progress has been 'uneven and slow', leaving many of the country's key problems unresolved. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Public debt remains high, and Egypt's external debt is expected to rise from $156.7bn to $180.6bn in the current fiscal year, deepening the country's financial strain, according to the IMF. Meanwhile, everyday Egyptians are bearing the brunt, grappling with soaring inflation, declining ages and a shrinking safety net, the report suggests. A flawed economic model The military's grip on Egypt's economy is not new. It dates back to the 1950s, following the July 1952 revolution, when army officers overthrew the monarchy. But the generals' economic role expanded significantly after the 2011 uprising, when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) assumed control following the ouster of long-time autocrat Hosni Mubarak. The situation even worsened under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who technically assumed power in 2013 after he had led a coup that removed Egypt's first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi. Egypt's Sisi accused of 'giving away' strategic Red Sea land of Ras Shukeir after decree Read More » One of the IMF's central concerns is the ongoing expansion of military-run businesses in non-defence sectors, operating behind closed doors, with little transparency or public oversight. The military has steadily expanded its role in construction, agriculture and other civilian sectors, justifying its reach by claiming to deliver major national projects and secure economic stability. But experts argue that this flawed model pushes out the private sector and reinforces a non-transparent economic elite. 'Military involvement in the country's economy undermined competition, discouraged private investment, and distorted market signals, creating a dual economy - one transparent and risky - and the other opaque and protected,' a Cairo-based economist told Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity for security concerns. The expert's view is echoed by a construction contractor in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria, who also asked to remain anonymous for similar reasons. 'Military involvement in the country's economy undermined competition' - Egyptian economist 'Before the army stepped into our industry, I used to have three projects running in and around Alexandria,' he told MEE. 'Now, I'm lucky if I get one a year. We just can't compete with the pricing or timelines of military-backed companies.' In 2019, Mohamed Ali, a former contractor now living in self-imposed exile in Spain, blew the whistle on the military's business dealings, sharing explosive behind-the-scenes details in a series of viral videos and social media posts. His revelations sent shock waves through Egypt, sparking rare public outrage and calls for accountability in a country where questioning the military is often taboo. In an exclusive interview with MEE, Ali revealed that he received state-funded projects without contracts or oversight. His claims, supported by the IMF's latest report, painted a picture of a shadow economy that avoids scrutiny. The IMF's latest report reflects those alarms, reinforcing long-standing concerns about secrecy and privilege in Egypt's economic system. 'While some private sector representatives reported improved access to foreign exchange,' the IMF noted, 'others flagged an uneven playing field in key sectors.' The report also pointed to 'gaps in transparency and accountability' in both state-run and military-affiliated companies. According to the report, military-owned and state-run firms benefit from tax exemptions, access to prime land and cheap labour, all while operating with very limited transparency about their finances. In industries like cement, steel, and marble and granite, military firms control up to 36 percent of the market, making it nearly impossible for genuine private competition to develop. An earlier section of the report noted that the 'reallocation of public spending towards military-related or high-profile projects diverts resources from more productive uses, and undermines long-term growth potential', cautioning that ongoing public sector control can discourage foreign investment and crowd out domestic enterprise. Credibility at stake The fifth and sixth reviews of Egypt's $8bn loan programme have now been merged and delayed, another sign of the IMF's mounting frustration. The delay highlights Cairo's slow progress on key commitments, especially privatising state and army-run companies and reducing fiscal vulnerabilities that still burden the economy. As part of its commitments to the IMF, the Egyptian government has promised to sell stakes in 11 state-owned enterprises by mid-2027. Four of these companies are military-owned, including Wataniya Petroleum and Safi, a bottled water company that has faced long-standing criticism for its lack of financial transparency. IMF more than doubles Egypt bailout deal to $8bn following devaluation Read More » The plan aims to increase private sector involvement and restore investor confidence. However, progress has been slow. Both Wataniya and Safi have been moved to the Sovereign Fund of Egypt to prepare them for sale. Two other military-affiliated companies - ChillOut, a fuel station chain, and Silo Foods - a large food processing business, are also set to be offered to local and foreign investors as part of the state's broader privatisation effort. While Gulf investors have consistently expressed interest in buying these military-run businesses, the deals have faced continuous delays, despite numerous promises and public statements from Egyptian officials. No clear timeline has been established, which raises questions about the government's willingness and ability to fulfil its privatisation commitments. Despite Egypt's shift to a flexible foreign exchange rate in March 2024, commended by the international lender, the report made it clear that Cairo must keep up with reforms to secure the next $2.5bn loan tranche. 'Preserving exchange rate flexibility and rebuilding credibility in the monetary framework will be critical,' the IMF explained. With public debt soaring and economic inequality deepening, the IMF's warning comes at a crucial moment. 'Unless exclusive benefits offered to military and state firms are lifted and transparency is ensured, private businesses will continue to hold back. The IMF's message is crystal clear. Sustainable growth requires fair play, not to protect a powerful few who avoid public scrutiny,' the economist concluded.
Middle East Eye
3 days ago
- Middle East Eye
Starmer's 'all guns, no butter' policy will cost him dearly
The recent Nato summit demanded that member states agree to reach a target of five percent of GDP on defence spending over the next decade. Nato secretary general Mark Rutte was beside himself with joy. This will make Nato 'more lethal', he vowed. Rutte was in no doubt as to why Nato had successfully agreed on this historic high in arms spending: US President Donald Trump, or 'daddy', as Rutte called him. In embarrassingly fulsome messages to Trump, made public by the US president, Rutte put to shame the most obsequious courtier in an 18th-century absolute monarchy, as he verbally prostrated himself at the feet of the ruler of the empire. In all fairness to Rutte, he was correctly summarising the view of European governments. Much as some claim to dislike Trump, they have fallen in line with his demands for increased arms expenditures in double-quick time. All but Spain endorsed the five-percent defence spending target, despite the fact that the US spends only 3.5 percent of GDP on arms. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Trump was triumphant, using the Nato news conference to rub the noses of European leaders in the latest proof that the US is the organisation's top dog. Never has founding secretary general Lord Ismay's aphorism - that Nato exists to keep 'the Soviet Union [read Russians] out, the Americans in, and the Germans [read Europeans] down' - been more true. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is an unqualified enthusiast for rearmament. The most clearly defining policy of his prime ministership so far, where so much else is shrouded in serial U-turns, is a commitment to US-led rearmament. The picture of Starmer at the recent G7 summit bowing at Trump's knee to pick up papers that the president had dropped went viral, because it accurately captured the political relationship between the two governments. Credibility gap Starmer, of course, signed up to the five percent of GDP rearmament target and coupled it with a commitment to buy a dozen American F35A fighters capable of carrying a nuclear payload, marking the first time the UK will have the capacity to deliver airborne nukes since the Cold War. The cost of this programme alone will be £15bn. More broadly, the newly publicised Strategic Defence Review underpins Starmer's over-inflated rhetoric about the UK needing to prepare to fight on the 'home front' in the case of a full land invasion of the UK. Such a project, unsuccessfully contemplated by Napoleon and Hitler, was last accomplished in 1066. There is no plausible modern candidate for this project. Russia, with an economy the size of Spain's and a military depleted by three years of unsuccessful war in Ukraine, is certainly not the 21st-century equivalent of either Napoleon or Hitler when their empires spanned the continent. Indeed, having failed to reach Kyiv, it is improbable to the point of absurdity to think that Russian troops might soon be on the Normandy beaches. The period of high Starmerism is past. Now the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, back towards traditional centrist Labourism The UK defence establishment and government are well aware that this huge credibility gap exists in the minds of British voters. The Strategic Defence Review spends an unusual amount of time worrying about how rearmament can be sold to the population. It calls for a 'national endeavour', first mooted by the previous Tory government, in which a wide variety of propaganda and 'educational' weapons will be fired at hapless citizens in order to reduce them to compliance with the warmongers' project. And there is no Starmer speech that does not echo the Strategic Defence Review's insistence that there will be a 'defence dividend', in the Orwellian language now common in government circles, that will result in more jobs. So far, the 'national endeavour' project is failing spectacularly. The purchase of F35A jets is a case in point. It's a slap in the face for Unite the Union general secretary Sharon Graham, who campaigned relentlessly for a renewal of the Eurofighter Typhoon fleet in the name of British jobs. In a sharp lesson in the UK's defence subservience to the US arms industry, Starmer ignored her and opted instead to flatter Trump with a purchase of American planes manufactured by Lockheed Martin, with only 15 percent of UK-made components. Leadership in danger But even when money spent by the UK government isn't pouring directly into the bank accounts of US defence contractors, it will never produce the same number of jobs as the same amount of money spent on civilian industry. Defence spending is simply a massively inefficient way of generating jobs. Beyond these specific arguments is the gigantic fact that Starmer is advocating huge increases in arms expenditures, while hacking away at the already emaciated welfare budget. The assault on welfare, the defining project of the first year of the Labour administration, has already produced a record-breaking back bench rebellion. This in turn produced yet another screeching U-turn from Starmer. Accompanying the U-turn is the blame game. At the moment, No. 10 guru Morgan McSweeney and 'iron chancellor' Rachel Reeves are the ones catching it in the neck. Starmer is running out of road Read More » As tens of thousands of people at the recent Glastonbury Festival cursed Starmer's name, Starmer himself has been busy apologising for his own mistakes to any journalist who will listen. A sure sign that Starmer's leadership is endangered was Health Secretary Wes Streeting's recent TV interview, in which he refuted criticism of the Glastonbury crowd by saying that Israel should get its 'own house in order'. Starmer is now a couple of by-election losses away from a leadership challenge. Perhaps he can make it to the May 2026 council elections if the fates spare sitting MPs and no by-election takes place. But whatever the timing proves to be, the period of high Starmerism is past. Now the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, back towards traditional centrist Labourism. A number of important consequences follow. Firstly, the time for Jeremy Corbyn to launch a new leftist party is now. Secondly, no new party can afford to be merely an electoral project: it must have the closest possible relations with Palestine and antiwar movements whose activists will be its core constituency. Thirdly, the antiwar movement will be central to ongoing opposition to the government. Reeves or her successor will return to the task of extracting the money for rearmament from working people, one way or another. The defence of working-class living standards at home will be intimately bound to opposition to the preparation for war abroad. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
