This paper is... weak, let's say.

Regular cloud seeding started in the area in 2010, so they compare data before and after 2010, ascribing all changes to cloud seeding without any kind of control.

They claim to use 3 stations, comparing data from 1992-2009 with data from 2010-2020 for each. However, the three station records start in 2003, 2010, and 2014. They fill the gaps in all 3 using data back to 1992 using a single series from Dubai airport.

No attempt is made to put any kind of uncertainty range on the estimated data nor on the return periods estimated from the estimated data. No attempt is made to assess whether there is a meaningful difference between the two periods, or explore alternative causes.

The turnaround time for the paper was 22 days from submission to publication. It is in an MDPI journal, famous for the quality of their peer review.

The intro cites a number of papers on rainfall in UAE and includes a reference to Ćurić et al., claiming it showed a 55mm increase in annual rainfall. It's a modelling study looking at the theoretical impact of two cloud seeding compounds.

mdpi.com/2073-4433/10/6…

The Kumar Suzuki paper at the start of the para looks at the properties of clouds to assess which are suitable for cloud seeding and does not show success or otherwise of cloud seeding.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Not even the reference to a news article is accurate. The news piece is far more circumspect about the efficacy and doesn't mention the stated increase in the first three months of 2020. It's not something you could observe anyway.

thenationalnews.com/uae/environmen…

In short, there's nothing in the paper, not even indirectly via citation, that supports the contention that cloud seeding has any effect on actual rainfall in Dubai.