Saudi Arabia's dilemma as it tries to stay out of US-Iran war
- Published
Saudi Arabia is facing a difficult dilemma. Ever since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran on 28 February, the Saudis have largely tried to stay out of it.
But now, after being attacked from three sides, the Saudis have had enough. This week, they carried out joint strikes with the US on Iranian proxy militias in Iraq who they believe have been launching drones at the Kingdom.
For Saudi Arabia the dilemma now is whether to keep on hitting back as a deterrent, or whether to try to de-escalate the situation, perhaps by paying off some of their adversaries.
So who is attacking who and why?
First, a bit of context. There are broadly two sides in the conflict that has been consuming the Gulf and other parts of the Middle East for five months now.
On one side there is Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Allied to them are the Houthis in Yemen, a tribal group who took over much of the country in 2014.
Also backed by Iran are the Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq, the paramilitary group that has allegedly carried out 30 drone strikes on Saudi Arabia and has now been attacked in return.
Then there is Hezbollah in Lebanon, still a potent force but one that is currently lying low.
On the opposite side of this conflict is the US with its immensely powerful Central Command (Centcom) forces plus - to varying degrees - the Gulf Arab states and Jordan. Israel remains a close US ally but is currently not an active participant in this war.
Iran has most recently been concentrating its drone and missile attacks on Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain, as well as targeting any commercial shipping that tries to slip through the Strait of Hormuz while avoiding Iran's new rules and routing.
The addition of Iraqi militias and the Houthis in Yemen is a relatively new phenomenon and it shows how - without a lasting peace deal between the US and Iran - the region risks becoming ever more embroiled in a widening conflict.
There are a number of reasons why Saudi Arabia is trying not to get sucked into a full-scale conflict.
Its de facto ruler, the relatively young Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, has embarked the country on a course known as "Vision 2030".
His aim is to diversify the Kingdom away from its dependence on oil revenues and create vibrant, modern, domestic industries that will provide meaningful jobs for the hundreds of thousands of graduates and school leavers pouring onto the job market each year.
Part of Vision 2030 involves attracting foreign investment. Part of it also involves building things like data centres that are vulnerable to attack.
Why the Strait of Hormuz matters so much in the Iran war
- Published14 July
This is not going to work if Saudi Arabia finds itself under an enduring, long-term threat from drones fired across its southern border by the Houthis in Yemen or ballistic missiles fired directly by Iran.
Back in September 2019, the Saudis suffered an unpleasant shock.
With relations with Iran in a poor state, the Saudis woke up to find that an Iranian proxy militia in Iraq had launched a fleet of drones at two of its most vital oil facilities, at Abqaiq and Khurais.
At the time there was a suggestion that the attack had come from the Houthis in Yemen but I visited the site straight afterwards and I could clearly see the holes in the superstructures all facing northwards.
That attack knocked half of Saudi oil exports offline for several days and it was a wake-up call to Riyadh as to just how vulnerable its critical national infrastructure is to attack.
On Monday, satellite images showed the Abqaiq oil facility was struck by drones launched once again by Iranian proxy militias in Iraq.
Then there is oil, still the lifeblood of the Saudi economy.
Iran retaliated against US and Israeli attacks in February by effectively closing off the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping channel between Iran and the Gulf through which 20% of the world's oil and liquified natural gas travelled.
In response, the Saudis pumped as much oil as they could – around five million barrels per day - through their east-west pipeline to their export terminal on the Red Sea, on their opposite coast, at Yanbu.
From there it was loaded onto tankers that headed south, out into the Arabian Sea and off to markets in Asia.
So far so good.
But on 13 July, the Saudis bombed Sanaa airport just outside the Yemeni capital. The strike was claimed by Yemen's Saudi-supported government, which said it wanted to prevent an Iranian plane from landing. In retaliation, the Houthis attacked regional Saudi airports at Abha and Jizan.
More worryingly for Riyadh, the Houthis have begun attacking Saudi shipping in the Red Sea, making it extremely dangerous for ships to pass through the narrow Bab El Mandeb strait at the southern end of the Red Sea. That in turn chokes off Saudi oil exports to Asia.
Saudi Arabia spent seven years trying to bomb the Houthis into submission and failed.
The war that raged across Yemen was one of the worst humanitarian disasters of our time and its effects are still being felt.
In 2022, Saudi Arabia agreed to an uneasy truce with the Houthis and there were reports of payoffs, but now the richest country in the region, Saudi Arabia, is once more facing the threat of drone and missile attacks from its southern neighbour at the same time as attacks from Iraq to the north.
None of this was envisaged in the plans for Vision 2030.
- Published2 days ago
- Published21 July
Facts Only
* Saudi Arabia attempted to stay out of the US-Iran war after February 28.
* Saudi Arabia conducted joint strikes with the US on Iranian proxy militias in Iraq believed to have launched drones at the Kingdom.
* The dilemma for Saudi Arabia is whether to continue striking as a deterrent or de-escalate through adversary payments.
* Conflict involves Iran/IRGC, the Houthis (Yemen), Popular Mobilisation Forces (Iraq), and Hezbollah (Lebanon) on one side, and the US, Gulf states, Jordan, and Israel on the other.
* Iran concentrated drone and missile attacks on Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
* Iraqi militias allegedly carried out 30 drone strikes on Saudi Arabia and were subsequently attacked in return.
* Saudi oil facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais were struck by Iranian proxy militias' drones in September 2019.
* Iran closed off the Strait of Hormuz in February in retaliation for US/Israeli attacks.
* Saudi Arabia pumped oil to Yanbu for export following the closure.
* Houthis attacked Saudi airports in Abha and Jizan, and began attacking Saudi shipping in the Red Sea.
Executive Summary
Saudi Arabia is navigating a difficult situation stemming from the US-Iran conflict, initially attempting to remain neutral but now engaging in retaliatory strikes against Iranian proxy militias in Iraq. This action forces Saudi Arabia into a dilemma: whether to continue striking as a deterrent or pursue de-escalation through negotiation. The conflict involves several actors: Iran and its IRGC, the Houthis in Yemen, the Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the US Central Command, Gulf Arab states, and Jordan. Iran has focused drone and missile attacks on countries like Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain, targeting commercial shipping. The involvement of Iraqi militias and the Houthis is emerging as a factor complicating regional stability without a peace deal between the US and Iran.
The context for Saudi Arabia's caution is its pursuit of Vision 2030, an initiative aimed at economic diversification away from oil dependency and fostering domestic industries. This involves attracting foreign investment and building infrastructure like data centers, which are vulnerable to attack. The ongoing conflict raises specific security concerns regarding vital economic arteries, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has restricted shipping routes. Saudi Arabia previously experienced vulnerability when Iranian proxy militias targeted oil facilities in Iraq, and subsequent incidents involved attacks on Saudi shipping lanes and airports in the Red Sea by the Houthis.
Full Take
The situation presents a structural conflict where external geopolitical dynamics create unavoidable security pressures on regional actors, particularly those pursuing long-term domestic economic goals. The pattern observed is that attempts by major powers to manage conflicts (like the US-Iran dynamic) often generate secondary and tertiary threats against proximate states, regardless of initial intentions. Saudi Arabia's pivot towards Vision 2030 creates a tension between strategic engagement—necessary for deterrence—and existential vulnerability posed by external actors whose actions directly impact critical infrastructure and economic lifelines like the Strait of Hormuz.
The transition from a traditional conflict to one involving non-state proxies (Iraqi militias, Houthis) demonstrates how diffuse regional disputes can rapidly re-ignite kinetic interactions with profound humanitarian consequences. The failure of previous engagement strategies, evidenced by Saudi Arabia's seven-year effort against the Houthis, suggests that reactive measures alone are insufficient when systemic vulnerabilities persist. The implication is that pursuing localized security gains without addressing the underlying drivers—such as the US-Iran dynamic or the fragmentation caused by proxy warfare—will cycle the costs of conflict onto vulnerable entities like Saudi Arabia.
What are the unspoken assumptions regarding the calculus of risk? Does focusing on immediate deterrence inherently undermine long-term strategic goals like economic diversification, or does it become a necessary precondition for achieving any form of stability? Furthermore, how do regional actors navigate the tension between sovereign policy objectives (Vision 2030) and the security exigencies imposed by transnational conflicts? What historical precedents exist for the costs associated with reacting to instability versus proactively shaping an environment conducive to peace?
Sentinel — Human
The text reads like an analytical piece blending current events with historical context to explore a strategic dilemma, characterized by a clear argumentative structure and embedded personal perspective.