Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, is pushing more forcefully than both U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the continuation and escalation of the war against Iran, according to a report by The New York Times.
Based on interviews with people familiar with high-level discussions, the report reveals that Prince Mohammed has privately told Trump that he “must press toward the destruction of Iran’s hard-line government,” describing the ongoing conflict as a “historic opportunity” to reshape the balance of power in the Middle East. He has argued that Iran poses a long-term threat to Gulf states and that the danger “can only be eliminated by getting rid of the government.”
These remarks place Saudi Arabia in a more openly aggressive position than its public statements suggest. While Riyadh has officially maintained that it supports a peaceful resolution, behind closed doors the crown prince has pressed for continued military pressure, including strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure and even the possibility of ground operations.
The New York Times report highlights a growing gap between public diplomacy and private strategy. Saudi officials said in a statement, “The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has always supported a peaceful resolution to this conflict, even before it began,” adding, “Our primary concern today is to defend ourselves from the daily attacks on our people and our civilian infrastructure.” At the same time, they accused Iran of choosing “dangerous brinkmanship over serious diplomatic solutions.”
The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is not new. It is the result of decades of political, religious, and strategic competition that has shaped the modern Middle East. The roots of the conflict can be traced back to the Iranian Revolution, when Iran transformed from a pro-Western monarchy into an اسلامی republic that sought to export its revolutionary model across the region. This alarmed Saudi Arabia’s ruling خاندان, which viewed itself as the guardian of Sunni Islam and the status quo in the Gulf.
From that point onward, the two countries backed opposing sides in nearly every major regional conflict. During the 1980s, Saudi Arabia quietly supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, fearing that Iran’s revolutionary message could spread to its own population. Less widely discussed is the role Saudi funding played in building religious networks across Asia and Africa during this period, promoting a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam often described as Wahhabi doctrine. Analysts have long argued that this effort was not only religious but strategic, aimed at countering Iranian influence by shaping ideological loyalty in Muslim communities worldwide.
This export of religious ideology has had lasting consequences. Saudi-funded institutions helped spread conservative teachings that, in some cases, overlapped with the worldview of militant groups. While the Saudi government has in recent years sought to distance itself from extremism, critics argue that earlier decades of funding contributed to the rise of hardline movements that destabilized parts of the region.
Tensions between Riyadh and Tehran have also been marked by direct confrontations. In 1987, clashes between Iranian pilgrims and Saudi security forces during the Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca left hundreds dead, an incident that deepened mistrust between the two nations. Diplomatic ties were severed more than once, including after the 2016 execution of a Shiite cleric in Saudi Arabia led to the storming of the Saudi embassy in Tehran.
In recent years, both countries briefly attempted to reduce tensions. In 2023, they agreed to restore diplomatic relations after years of hostility, recognizing that continued conflict was damaging their economies and regional stability. But the current war has reversed much of that progress. Iranian missile and drone attacks in response to U.S. and Israeli strikes have hit Saudi oil facilities and infrastructure, disrupting markets and raising fears of a broader regional crisis.
According to the New York Times, Prince Mohammed believes that if the United States pulls back now, Iran will emerge stronger and more aggressive. He has warned that a partial or unfinished military campaign would leave Saudi Arabia exposed to repeated attacks. At the same time, there are concerns within both Saudi and American governments that a prolonged conflict could spiral out of control.
The الحرب has already affected global energy flows. The Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for oil exports, has been severely disrupted, and even alternative pipelines have come under attack. Saudi Arabia’s economy, heavily dependent on stable energy exports, faces significant risks if the conflict continues.
There are also differences among allies. While Israeli leaders may accept an Iran weakened by internal instability, Saudi Arabia fears that a collapsed Iranian state would create chaos, with armed factions continuing to threaten Gulf countries. For Riyadh, both a strong Iran and a failed Iran present dangers.
At the same time, Prince Mohammed is under pressure at home. His ambitious plans to transform Saudi Arabia into a global economic and tourism hub depend on stability and investor confidence. A prolonged war could undermine those goals, even as he pushes for decisive action against Iran.
