Amid escalating tensions in the Middle East, now in the fourth week of a conflict triggered by joint US–Israel strikes on Iran last month, the role of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is once again under scrutiny. Several reports have pointed to his growing influence on the evolving regional dynamics, with claims that he is pushing for an extended war against Iran. This has raised questions about the motivations behind Saudi Arabia’s stance and the potential consequences for the region.
According to a recent New York Times report, Mohammed bin Salman, often referred to as MBS, has urged US President Donald Trump to continue the war against Iran, calling it a “historic opportunity” to reshape the Middle East. In recent conversations, the Saudi leader conveyed that Washington should press ahead toward dismantling Iran’s hardline government, the report said, citing people briefed on the discussions. MBS has reportedly argued that Iran poses a long-term threat to Gulf nations and that only a change in leadership in Tehran can eliminate that risk. The Crown Prince has also pushed for targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure and, in some discussions, even floated the idea of deploying ground forces, according to sources familiar with US briefings.
However, Saudi Arabia has denied these claims. The Saudi government issued a statement saying, “The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has always supported a peaceful resolution to this conflict, even before it began.” Despite the denial, President Trump praised Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday, calling him a “warrior” and saying, “He’s fighting with us, by the way. Saudi Arabia has been excellent.” This public endorsement has fueled speculation about the extent of Saudi influence on US decision-making.
Historical Rivalry and Strategic Calculations
To understand why Saudi Arabia might be pushing for a harder line against Iran, one must look at the decades-long rivalry between the two powers. For years, Iran and Saudi Arabia have competed for political and security influence across the Middle East—a contest often characterized as a “new Cold War.” This rivalry is rooted in religious and political identities: Saudi Arabia represents the predominantly Sunni Muslim world and sees itself as the custodian of Sunni Islam, while Iran is a Shia Muslim state. This sectarian divide has been invoked by both sides in regional conflicts, from Syria and Yemen to Lebanon and Iraq.
Diplomatic ties between the two countries were severed in 2016 after the execution of Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr in Saudi Arabia and subsequent attacks on Saudi diplomatic facilities in Iran. A fragile détente was achieved in 2023 through Chinese-mediated talks, but the current conflict has shattered that trust. Regional officials warn that trust between Gulf states and Iran has “completely shattered,” raising concerns about long-term instability regardless of how the conflict ends, according to the New York Times report.
Economic Interests: Oil and Vision 2030
Saudi Arabia's economic ambitions also play a crucial role in its stance. Crown Prince MBS’s Vision 2030 reform agenda aims to transform the kingdom into a global investment and tourism hub, reducing its dependence on oil. This vision depends on regional stability, which is threatened by a destabilized or failed Iranian state. However, the conflict has already had economic fallout, particularly after Iran’s retaliatory disruptions to oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway is a critical chokepoint for global energy markets, and any disruption affects oil prices and international economic stability.
Saudi Arabia is also acutely aware of its own vulnerability. In 2019, Iran-linked drone and missile attacks on Saudi Aramco’s oil processing facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais temporarily disrupted 5.7 million barrels per day of crude oil production. That attack was a stark reminder of Iran’s ability to inflict economic pain. By supporting a continued US-Israeli campaign, MBS may believe that eliminating the Iranian threat once and for all is necessary to secure his country’s long-term economic future.
At the same time, the kingdom has publicly stuck to a cautious stance. Official statements reiterate support for a peaceful resolution, emphasizing that its priority remains defending civilian infrastructure and halting ongoing attacks. This dual approach—private pressure for escalation and public calls for peace—reflects the delicate balancing act Saudi Arabia must perform. It wants to avoid being seen as an aggressor, especially in the Muslim world, where support for Iran varies among nations.
The Conflict So Far
The current conflict began on 28 February when the US and Israel launched joint military strikes on Iran, which led to the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In retaliation, Iran targeted Israeli and US assets across several Gulf countries, causing disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz and impacting international energy markets. The strikes drew widespread criticism from several Muslim-majority countries, including Saudi Arabia, which condemned Iran for carrying out retaliatory strikes on US and Israeli military bases located in neighboring Arab nations.
On Tuesday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer discussed the ongoing conflict with Mohammed bin Salman. Starmer reiterated support for Saudi Arabia during the US-Israeli war against Iran and updated the crown prince on the deployment of further UK defensive military equipment. Describing Iran's attacks as “appalling,” Starmer’s comments align with Western backing for the Saudi position.
As the conflict enters its fourth week, the situation remains volatile. Trade routes through the Strait of Hormuz are disrupted, and global economic stability is threatened. Analysts argue that the longer the conflict persists, the more likely it is that Iran’s proxies—such as Hezbollah and Houthi rebels—will escalate attacks, further destabilizing the region. For Saudi Arabia, the stakes could not be higher. The kingdom’s Vision 2030 requires peace and foreign investment, but a prolonged war could spiral out of control, dragging in more regional actors and causing a humanitarian catastrophe.
In addition, the internal political dynamics in Saudi Arabia must be considered. MBS has consolidated power and is seen as the de facto ruler, but his aggressive foreign policy in the past—such as the war in Yemen—has drawn international criticism and isolated the kingdom. By positioning himself as a key ally of the US in confronting Iran, MBS may be seeking to rehabilitate his image and secure American support for his reforms. However, this strategy also carries risks. If the war goes badly or leads to unintended consequences, MBS could face backlash both domestically and internationally.
The Iran-Saudi Arabia rivalry is not just about geopolitical influence; it also extends to religious leadership and proxy wars. In Yemen, Saudi Arabia leads a coalition against Iran-backed Houthi rebels. In Syria, the two sides have backed opposite factions. In Lebanon, Iran supports Hezbollah, while Saudi Arabia has traditionally backed Sunni factions. Any major shift in the balance of power could have repercussions across these frontlines. The US-Israeli strikes on Iran have already weakened Tehran’s conventional military capabilities, but Iran retains a network of proxies that could continue to cause trouble for Saudi Arabia and its allies.
Moreover, the oil markets are acutely sensitive to any disruption in the Persian Gulf region. Saudi Arabia, as the world’s largest oil exporter, has a vested interest in stable energy prices. However, the current conflict has already led to price spikes, which could hurt the global economy and reduce demand for oil—a scenario that would be detrimental to Saudi fiscal planning. MBS may believe that a quick and decisive victory against Iran would restore stability more quickly than a protracted stalemate.
The role of other Gulf states is also important. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Qatar have varying degrees of alignment with Saudi Arabia. While the UAE has supported the US campaign against Iran, Qatar has maintained diplomatic channels with Tehran. This divergence means that Saudi Arabia cannot speak for the entire Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Any aggressive moves by Riyadh could strain relations with its neighbors.
Internationally, the conflict has drawn reactions from major powers. The United States has been the primary backer of the strikes, but European countries have expressed concerns about the humanitarian impact and the risk of a broader war. Russia and China have called for restraint, though they have limited influence in the current situation. The United Nations has warned of a potential catastrophe if the conflict escalates further.
In conclusion, whether or not Mohammed bin Salman is directly influencing Trump's war strategy, the underlying factors are clear: a deep-seated rivalry with Iran, economic ambitions tied to Vision 2030, and a desire for regional stability that aligns with US and Israeli interests. The Saudi crown prince is walking a tightrope, trying to shape events to his advantage while avoiding the appearance of warmongering. As the conflict continues, the world will watch closely to see how this delicate balance plays out.
Source: MSN News