The United States and Iran have returned to the negotiating table after the United States came perilously close to launching a military strike against Iran. It came as no surprise that the kingdom adopted a clear and publicly declared stance rejecting the option of war — indeed, it outright refused to permit the use of its airspace or military bases for any potential attack against Iran. The kingdom’s efforts did not stop there; it leveraged its amicable relationship with the current US administration under President Donald Trump to urge Washington to revert to the path of diplomacy. Despite these Saudi initiatives — combined with parallel efforts by other regional powers allied with the kingdom —having a tangible impact in Washington to the extent that they convinced Trump to step back from the brink, return to negotiations and set aside the military option, attempts were made by rival regional actors to question and distort Saudi Arabia’s position. Furthermore, certain parties within Iran exploited this propaganda for their own domestic calculations, possibly even deploying it to sow discord between the kingdom and Iran and to foster an atmosphere of mutual distrust between the two sides. This is not to mention the failure by some to interpret this Saudi stance within the broader framework of Saudi foreign policy and its long-term strategic objectives.
Some analysts interpret Saudi Arabia’s position on the prospect of war with Iran purely through the lens of the kingdom’s strategic self-interest. They contend that a US military attack on Iran would produce highly adverse consequences, directly jeopardizing Saudi national priorities. For instance, Iran could retaliate against US strikes by targeting US military bases across the Gulf, launching assaults on Saudi oil facilities, or disrupting maritime traffic —including the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz. These interpretations also highlight Saudi concerns over the unpredictable fallout from a US war explicitly aimed at regime change in Tehran. Such an outcome could create a prolonged power vacuum across the region, unleashing severe security, political and social instability. In turn, this turmoil would undermine Saudi Arabia’s ambitious domestic development agenda — since the kingdom views sustained regional stability as the essential foundation its development.
This argument is sound, grounded in a realistic assessment of geopolitics and the historically fraught dynamics between Riyadh and Tehran. Nevertheless, it falls short of fully grasping the deeper essence of Saudi Arabia’s contemporary regional role, the sophistication of its foreign policy architecture, and the enduring principles that continue to guide its strategic decisions. Saudi Arabia pursues a highly rational, balanced and principled approach to foreign affairs — one that safeguards its core national interests while remaining attentive to the aspirations and security concerns of its neighbors. With resolute determination, the kingdom defends its sovereignty and national security imperatives, yet it never abdicates its broader responsibility to uphold stability in the surrounding region. This dual commitment — to self-preservation and collective regional order — forms the bedrock of Riyadh’s diplomacy. A proper analysis of recent developments must therefore incorporate the kingdom’s current strategic positioning, as well as the persistent efforts by certain actors to undermine or disrupt these carefully calibrated balances. It is equally important to recognize Riyadh’s unwavering determination to forestall the eruption of widespread chaos that could pave the way for a new Middle East — one that would primarily serve the agendas of hostile, expansionist powers at the expense of Arab stability and sovereignty.
At its core, this policy represents a sophisticated synthesis of national interests, strategic imperatives, legal and normative principles, and humanitarian considerations. It is fundamentally driven by the imperative to safeguard Saudi Arabia’s vital national interests while simultaneously respecting and accommodating the legitimate national interests and security concerns of other states in the region. This approach is deeply rooted in the kingdom’s historical legacy, its pivotal regional and global role. Its objectives are clear: to stimulate stability, propel development, curb disorder, counter schemes of fragmentation and partition and confront attempts to reshape the region’s strategic environment in ways detrimental to its states and peoples.
What is evident is that this policy does not consist of sporadic initiatives launched here and there in response to fleeting circumstances; rather, it is an entrenched and consistent doctrine, with deep roots and tangible manifestations in Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria and beyond. In these arenas, the kingdom has pursued a principled approach aimed at reinforcing state stability, safeguarding sovereignty, and preserving territorial unity — within the framework of established international norms and in accordance with the principles to which it has bound itself in its engagement with the region. It is equally evident that some of these states are already reaping the benefits of the steadfast Saudi stance, which reflects an unwavering commitment rather than a tactical maneuver. This is apparent in Syria, in the context of the Palestinian cause, and in what is hoped for in Sudan and Somalia following recent Saudi diplomatic movements.
On this basis, the Saudi position rejecting an attack on Iran should neither be surprising nor interpreted as purely self-serving. When understood within the broader architecture of this policy, it emerges as a position that strengthens the kingdom’s credibility and signals the prudence and strategic maturity of its approach. Undoubtedly, such a stance may impose challenges on the kingdom and place it in direct confrontation with destabilizing forces that perceive conflict and war as instruments for expanding influence, entrenching presence, and securing narrow interests. Yet at the same time, this position enhances the kingdom’s stature and leadership. One need only consider the image of the kingdom that is solidifying and the soft power that shines ever more brightly in the wake of such principled decisions.
Thus, it can be said that through this rational and measured policy, the kingdom repeatedly demonstrates that it is an indispensable regional power for the states of the region — including Iran itself. It stands as a force for peace and stability amid a deeply turbulent regional landscape, characterized by intersecting agendas of international and regional actors seeking to redraw the geopolitical map through the spread of chaos, the promotion of secessionist projects, the fragmentation of states, the ignition of civil wars and overthrow of political systems.
Undoubtedly, this Saudi policy is not merely a defensive line protecting regional states and their stability; it is also a project of hope for their peoples. It embodies a realistic yet humanitarian vision that offers societies a pathway out of the cycle of disorder that has ensnared the region over the past decades. More than that, it proposes an alternative: a stable and prosperous Middle East. Iran, for its part, would do well to recognize and seize these positive signals emanating from the kingdom — signals grounded in a profound sense of historical responsibility toward itself, toward the region, and toward its nation-states and peoples. By engaging constructively with this approach, Iran could help forge a new regional reality that yields gains for all, fosters conditions conducive to development and progress, and moves away from policies that have ultimately produced no tangible benefit — policies that, on the contrary, have inflicted harm upon Iran as both a state and a society, and that now threaten the very survival of its political system.
Opinions in this article reflect the writer’s point of view, not necessarily the view of Rasanah
