Israel vs. Iran: Why Riyadh is committed to de-escalation
https://arab.news/vzkcj
As anyone who has followed the recent statements coming out of the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs will tell you, the Kingdom has made its stance regarding the recent regional tensions unequivocally clear: The current aggression against Iran is not only unacceptable, but also a dangerous provocation that threatens the stability of the entire Middle East.
It is important for observers to note that Saudi Arabia today views Iran not as an adversary, but as a fellow Muslim nation facing a grave and unjustified assault. In condemning this attack as a blatant violation of international norms, Riyadh has voiced strong solidarity with the Iranian people, rejecting any breach of their sovereignty. This principled position reflects the Kingdom's long-standing belief in non-intervention and mutual respect among nations.
What is particularly alarming is the apparent objective behind the timing of these hostilities: to derail sensitive negotiations between Tehran and Washington. Saudi Arabia sees this as a calculated move to sabotage dialogue that could de-escalate one of the region's most intractable challenges — the Iranian nuclear file.
Since the landmark Beijing agreement in March 2023, Saudi-Iranian relations have, slowly but surely, entered a promising new chapter. While it is true that previous hostilities could not easily be forgotten, trust-building measures have been gradually taking root, with bilateral committees working across various domains to ensure differences do not escalate unchecked. This fragile progress — and the greater idea of a peaceful and prosperous Middle East — is precisely what stands to be lost if the drums of war drown out diplomatic momentum.
Riyadh has also emphasized that regional stability hinges on stronger cooperation among Muslim nations. Under the umbrella of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Kingdom believes in the potential for a united front that can foster peace and development, so long as intentions are sincere and not clouded by geopolitical ambitions.
The current aggression is not only unacceptable, but also a dangerous provocation.
Faisal J. Abbas | Editor-in-Chief
In a flurry of diplomatic engagement, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been on the phone with world leaders, all the way from Washington to London to the Far East, calling for collective action to halt what could possibly be a regional disaster. He has also spoken directly with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, underscoring Saudi Arabia's commitment to de-escalation and its willingness to mediate.
This leadership extends beyond political gestures. On the ground, the Kingdom provided shelter, medical care, and transportation to over 70,000 Iranian pilgrims stranded in Saudi Arabia due to the conflict. Acting on the crown prince's directive, the Kingdom funded their stay and coordinated their safe return home — a humanitarian move reflecting the values Saudi Arabia consistently upholds.
Meanwhile, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan has been tirelessly engaging with global counterparts, rallying support for a ceasefire and meeting directly with his Iranian counterpart to explore diplomatic solutions. Notably, Riyadh had urged Tehran — well before the outbreak of hostilities — to engage with Washington's final offer seriously, warning that the US stance on the nuclear issue should not be underestimated.
Looking forward, should Iran face humanitarian challenges in the aftermath of this crisis, there is no doubt that the Kingdom will be among the first to offer aid. This is not merely altruism — it is a strategic and moral imperative rooted in the belief that the well-being of neighboring nations affects the collective fate of the region.
Crucially, Saudi Arabia has drawn a firm line: No belligerent party will be permitted to use its airspace, land, or waters. Riyadh's neutrality is active, not passive — it is deliberate, disciplined, and unwavering in its commitment to de-escalation.
Needless to say, the deliberate targeting of civilians, bombing of media outlets and hospitals, and threats to the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader are condemnable and appalling; but by continuing to accept them we risk normalizing unacceptable war crimes.
Hopefully, there will be some adults in decision-making rooms around the world who will agree that this escalation needs to stop before we reach the point of no return.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
32 minutes ago
- Arab News
Democrats are at odds over the Israel-Iran war as Trump considers intervening
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats are now finding themselves at odds over US policy toward Iran as progressives demand unified opposition to President Donald Trump's consideration of a strike against Tehran's nuclear program while party leaders tread more cautiously. US leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime US foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatens to destroy Israel. But Trump's public flirtation with joining Israel's offensive against Iran may become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it is sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. While progressives have staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential actions, the party leadership is playing the safer ground of demanding a role for Congress before Trump could use force against Iran. Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations are staying silent, so far, on the Israel-Iran war. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats use Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., has called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party' and has introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, that calls on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of US armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the 'manosphere.' 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Very fine words. Trump should remember them today. Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders has reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that US military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but he is so far holding off this time. Some believe the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance as Trump weighs whether to launch a military offensive that is seemingly counter to the anti-interventionism he promised during his 2024 campaign. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. Bridging the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of US support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, was also cautious in responding to the Israeli action and said 'the US must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' 'It really seems like the Trump and Iran war track is kind of going along like a Formula 1 racetrack, and then the Democrats are in some sort of tricycle or something trying to keep up,' said Ryan Costello, a policy director for the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, which advocates for diplomatic engagement between US and Iran. Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, on X. 'The single reason Iran was so close to obtaining a nuclear weapon is that Trump destroyed the diplomatic agreement that put major, verifiable constraints on their nuclear program.' The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the US was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the US was in conflict. Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari, an Iranian American from Arizona, said Iranians are unwitting victims in the conflict because there aren't shelters or infrastructure to protect civilians from targeted missiles as there are in Israel. 'The Iranian people are not the regime, and they should not be punished for its actions,' Ansari posted on X, while criticizing Trump for fomenting fear among the Iranian population. 'The Iranian people deserve freedom from the barbaric regime, and Israelis deserve security.'
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Explore World News Today
The US ambassador to Israel said on Saturday the United States has begun 'assisted departure flights' from Israel, the first time such flights have been…
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Iran Vows to Make IAEA Chief ‘Pay'
A senior adviser for Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, vowed in a social media post Saturday to make the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency 'pay' once the war with Israel is over. Ali Larijani's threat comes as IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi has become a major target for many Iranian officials who say his conflicting statements about the status of Iran's nuclear program incited the Israeli surprise attack last week. Grossi, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog, warned Friday at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council against attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors, particularly its only commercial nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr. 'In case of an attack on the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity,' Grossi said, adding: 'This is the nuclear site in Iran where the consequences could be most serious.' Israel has not targeted Iran's nuclear reactors, instead focusing its strikes on the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, laboratories in Isfahan and the country's Arak heavy water reactor southwest of the capital. Iran previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal in exchange for sanctions relief. But after US President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60% and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. Iran has insisted on its right to enrich uranium — at lower levels — in recent talks over its nuclear program. But Trump, like Israel, has demanded Iran end its enrichment program altogether.
