A Saudi perspective on security, diplomacy and human dignity
https://arab.news/55ww5
As a Saudi national, I view the Middle East's complex challenges through the lens of my country's commitment to regional stability, Islamic values and Vision 2030's aspirations for sustainable development. The new escalation between Israel and Iran, marked by Israeli airstrikes authorized by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, underscores the urgent need for a balanced approach to security, diplomacy and human dignity.
These strikes, ostensibly aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, risk plunging the region into broader conflict, potentially involving global powers like the US. From a Saudi perspective, fostering sustainable peace requires de-escalation, inclusive dialogue and addressing the root causes of conflict, such as economic disparity and political marginalization.
Israel's airstrikes on Iran, justified as a response to Iran's nuclear program reaching 60 percent uranium enrichment, have heightened regional tensions. However, the timing, amid Netanyahu's domestic political struggles and waning support for military operations in Gaza, suggests ulterior motives. Critics argue that these actions may serve to bolster Netanyahu's position, deflecting attention from his legal and political challenges. As a Saudi observer, I see this as a risky gambit that could accelerate Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than deter them, threatening the entire region's stability.
Saudi Arabia, alongside other Gulf Cooperation Council nations, has condemned these airstrikes as a violation of Iran's sovereignty and international law. This stance reflects our commitment to regional stability and opposition to actions that undermine mutual respect among nations. The Kingdom's condemnation is not merely rhetorical; it signals a broader call for de-escalation and dialogue to prevent a wider conflict that could destabilize the Middle East and impact global energy markets, a critical concern for Saudi Arabia.
Western policies, particularly those of the US, have often prioritized geopolitical dominance over sustainable peacebuilding. The US-Israel relationship, shaped partly by the influential Israel lobby, as described by scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, has aligned American foreign policy with Israel's immediate security concerns. While this partnership has strengthened bilateral ties, it has sometimes overlooked the long-term consequences for regional stability. The US-led invasion of Iraq, for instance, destabilized the region, weakened Arab states and fueled populism and extremism challenges that persist today.
From a Saudi perspective, the fragility of many Arab states, compounded by ineffective leadership and rising nationalism, underscores the need for a strategic pivot. The US cannot sustain flawed policies indefinitely, as the human and economic costs of interventions like Iraq demonstrate. Saudi Arabia welcomes recent US restraint, with figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasizing that American priorities lie in protecting its forces rather than endorsing Israel's strikes on Iran. This shift opens space for diplomacy, which Saudi Arabia is well positioned to champion.
Saudi Arabia holds a unique position in the Middle East, rooted in its religious significance as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and its foreign policy being aimed at fostering stability. The Kingdom's Vision 2030 emphasizes sustainable development and economic diversification, aligning with the broader goal of regional cooperation. In the context of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, Saudi Arabia has advocated for the Arab Peace Initiative, which offers normalization with Israel in exchange for a two-state solution. This framework reflects our commitment to balancing security with justice and addressing Palestinian aspirations, while fostering regional collaboration.
Two peace frameworks merit consideration: the two-state solution and the two-return solution. The two-state solution envisions an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, promoting mutual recognition and security cooperation. The two-return solution, meanwhile, addresses historical grievances by proposing compensation and recognition of both Palestinian and Jewish narratives to facilitate reconciliation.
Fostering sustainable peace requires de-escalation, inclusive dialogue and addressing the root causes of conflict.
Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed
Both approaches face challenges from Israeli settlement expansion, Palestinian governance fragmentation and skepticism about Israel's commitment to peace, but Saudi Arabia's mediation can bridge divides. By promoting adherence to international law and partnering with global stakeholders, the Kingdom can advance a comprehensive approach that integrates humanitarian and economic considerations.
Israel's current policies under Netanyahu, including its operations in Gaza and efforts to neutralize Iran's nuclear capabilities, prioritize immediate security but risk long-term consequences. The pursuit of 'total victory' in Gaza and aggressive posturing toward Iran may isolate Israel diplomatically, strain its alliances and impact US interests and Jewish communities worldwide. From a Saudi perspective, sustainable security for Israel and the region requires integrating robust defense with diplomacy that tackles conflict drivers like economic inequality and political marginalization.
Netanyahu's actions, driven partly by domestic pressures, risk dragging the region into chaos. As a Saudi national, I join global voices opposing leaders who exploit fear to justify escalation. The Kingdom's condemnation of Israel's airstrikes on Iran reflects our broader stance against unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and stability. Instead, we advocate for dialogue, economic development and countering extremism to create a cooperative framework for the region.
The ongoing crisis in Gaza demands urgent attention. The humanitarian toll, marked by significant loss of life and suffering, requires immediate international action focused on de-escalation and relief. Saudi Arabia, in alignment with the other GCC nations, calls for responsible leadership rooted in empathy for both Palestinian and Israeli communities. Breaking cycles of violence hinges on fostering dialogue and trust, addressing not only security concerns but also the human dignity of all stakeholders.
Historical conflicts in the region, from Iraq to Syria, highlight the necessity of inclusive partnerships built on mutual respect. Aspirations for peace, echoed by figures like US President Donald Trump, who has positioned himself as a potential peacemaker, depend on balanced collaboration. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states hold strategic leverage to counter foreign interference and extremist threats, aligning with a shared vision of stability and prosperity.
The Middle East's future remains uncertain, with the Israel-Iran conflict of 2025 raising more questions than answers. The efficacy of Israel's military actions, the potential for US-Iran negotiations and the political fallout in both nations are yet to be fully understood. What is clear, however, is the need for all stakeholders — Western governments, Israel, Arab states and the international community — to prioritize human dignity and de-escalation.
Saudi Arabia's leadership, grounded in its religious and geopolitical influence, seeks to foster dialogue, promote equitable development and reduce external interference. By advocating for frameworks like the Arab Peace Initiative and supporting inclusive peace processes, the Kingdom can help pave the way for a stable and prosperous Middle East. Sustainable peace demands not only strategic restraint but also a shared commitment to cooperation, mutual prosperity and respect for all communities.
In conclusion, as a Saudi national, I believe that fostering sustainable peace in the Middle East requires moving beyond military escalation to embrace diplomacy and human dignity. The Kingdom's role as a mediator, coupled with its vision for regional stability, offers hope for a future where dialogue triumphs over conflict and cooperation replaces division. The path forward is challenging, but with collective resolve we can build a Middle East defined by peace and prosperity for all.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
22 minutes ago
- Arab News
Pakistan says fuel stocks sufficient, vows vigilance as Mideast tensions rattle markets
KARACHI: Pakistan currently holds adequate stocks of petroleum products and faces no immediate risk of supply disruption, the finance ministry said on Monday, while warning that continued vigilance was needed as Middle East tensions pushed oil markets into fresh volatility. The statement came after the inaugural meeting of a committee formed by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif last week to monitor petroleum pricing and supply in response to an ongoing military confrontation between Israel and Iran. Oil markets have been volatile amid the escalation, with Brent crude prices jumping about 7 percent last Friday to near $75 per barrel, but edging down on Monday, as renewed military strikes by both nations over the weekend left oil production and export facilities unaffected. Concern is focused on potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one‑fifth of global oil transits, and weak supply growth from Iran, which produces about 3.3 million barrels per day. Analysts caution any sustained spike could drive up global freight rates, insurance premiums and inflation, particularly in energy‑importing countries like Pakistan. 'The committee expressed satisfaction that Pakistan currently holds adequate stocks of petroleum products and there is no immediate risk of supply disruption. Nonetheless, members emphasized the need for continued vigilance given the rapidly changing regional context,' the finance ministry said after the first meeting of the committee, chaired by Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb. The ministry added that to ensure timely response and effective coordination, a working group would monitor developments on a daily basis, and the full committee would meet weekly to review the situation and submit recommendations to the prime minister. 'The Government of Pakistan remains fully committed to maintaining energy security, stabilizing markets, and protecting the national interest during this critical time,' the statement added. The committee has been entrusted with monitoring the forward/futures prices of petroleum products and the predictability of supply chains, determining the foreign reserve implications of price volatility in the short and medium term, suggesting a plan, if and when required, to ensure there were no supply disruptions and the market was well supplied, and carrying out a detailed analysis of the fiscal impact in the event of a protracted conflict. Pakistan relies heavily on imported oil, and any sustained spike in prices could widen its current account deficit and push inflation higher at a time when the country is struggling with low foreign reserves and slow growth. The Israel-Iran conflict started on Friday when Israel launched a massive wave of attacks targeting Iranian nuclear and military facilities but also hitting residential areas, sparking retaliation and fears of a broader regional conflict. Over 220, mostly civilians have been killed in Iran so far, while Israel has reported 23 deaths in retaliatory strikes by Tehran. Pakistan and Iran share a 909 kilometer (565 mile) long international boundary that separates Iran's southeastern Sistan-Baluchestan province from Pakistan's southwestern Balochistan province. 'Israel-Iran conflict presents complex challenges for Pakistan as rising oil prices may increase import costs and inflation, influencing monetary policy and growth, while disruptions to key routes like the Strait of Hormuz can affect energy supplies and critical projects,' Khaqan Najeeb, an economist and former finance ministry adviser, told Arab News last week. 'It can potentially affect consumer purchasing power and production costs ... Possible disruptions to shipping routes and higher freight charges might result in delays to imports and exports, thereby exerting additional pressure on Pakistan's external sector.'
Asharq Al-Awsat
23 minutes ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Russia Is Ready to Mediate on Iran, and to Accept Tehran's Uranium, Kremlin Says
Russia remains ready to act as a mediator in the conflict between Israel and Iran, and Moscow's previous proposal to store Iranian uranium in Russia remains on the table, the Kremlin said on Monday. Tehran says it has the right to peaceful nuclear power, but its swiftly-advancing uranium enrichment program has raised fears in the wider West and across the region that it wants to develop a nuclear weapon. Russia's previous proposals on taking uranium to Russia remains on the table "it remains relevant. But, of course, with the outbreak of hostilities, the situation has become seriously complicated," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. US President Donald Trump expressed optimism on Sunday that peace would come soon and cited the possibility that Russian President Vladimir Putin could help. Russia, Peskov said, remained ready to mediate if needed, but he noted the root causes of the conflict needed to be addressed and eliminated - and that the military strikes were escalating the entire crisis to beyond serious levels. "Russia remains ready to do everything necessary to eliminate the root causes of this crisis," Peskov said. "But the situation is escalating more than seriously, and, of course, this is not affecting the situation for the better." Asked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks to Fox News on Sunday that regime change in Iran could be a result of Israel's military attacks, Peskov said that the Kremlin had seen the remarks. "You know that we condemn those actions that have led to such a dangerous escalation of tension in the region," Peskov said. "And secondly, we also note a significant consolidation of society in Iran against the background of the bombing that is currently being carried out by the Israeli side."
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
No turning back: Israel and Iran locked in direct military confrontation
What had long been feared and anticipated has finally erupted into full-blown war. After years of rising tensions, covert and limited strikes, and proxy battles, a direct and massive confrontation broke out last week between Iran and Israel. The long-standing animosity and threats culminated in an Israeli surprise offensive of unprecedented scale – signaling that the shadow war has now become an open and expansive military conflict. What was once looming has now broken into the open, unleashing consequences that may reshape the Middle East for decades. For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app. From Israel's perspective, this war is not just a reaction to threats; it is a preemptive act of survival. Officials in Tel Aviv had increasingly warned that Iran was approaching a nuclear threshold, and that time was running out to stop the Islamic Republic from acquiring the capability to develop and potentially use nuclear weapons. For months, military and intelligence agencies in Israel had reportedly drawn up extensive plans for a decisive strike – a scenario that would cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions in one swift blow. That moment came last week, as waves of Israeli fighter jets, drones, and cyber units launched a surprise offensive, striking deep inside Iranian territory. The operation, reportedly called 'Operation Rising Lion,' was massive in scope and shockingly effective. Within a span of less than 48 hours, Israeli forces conducted coordinated strikes on over one hundred critical targets, including uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow, missile production plants, and weapons storage sites. Even more strikingly, Israel successfully assassinated multiple senior Iranian nuclear scientists and top military commanders, including figures seen as central to Iran's nuclear program and regional military strategy. These were not symbolic casualties – among the dead were General Hossein Salami, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran's military chief of staff, and General Gholam Ali Rashid, a key strategic planner. The sudden loss of such high-ranking officials has left Iran's military leadership severely fragmented and scrambling to regain control. In addition to the airstrikes, the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, reportedly carried out precision ground operations within Iran to sabotage radar systems, disable air defense units, and guide airstrikes to their intended targets. The element of surprise was total. Iran, which had long anticipated Israeli threats, was caught off guard. According to both Western intelligence and regional analysts, the effectiveness of the attack was not only due to Israel's superior technology but also its ability to exploit internal disorganization and political distractions within Iran. Iran's response was swift but lacked the coordination and impact of the Israeli assault. Within hours of the attacks, the Iranian military launched a barrage of over one hundred drones and several hundred ballistic missiles toward Israeli territory. The Islamic Republic declared that it would retaliate and vowed to exact revenge for what it called an act of war and a violation of its sovereignty. What makes this confrontation different from past escalations is its sheer scale and direction. Unlike previous episodes, which often involved a few strikes, some limited retaliation, and a quick return to uneasy quiet, this conflict appears to be heading into uncharted territory. Both sides seem to have abandoned any pretense of restraint. Israeli officials have hinted that they are prepared to continue operations. Iran, for its part, has issued statements signaling that it sees this as an existential conflict and will not cease until Israel 'pays a heavy price.' The language and actions on both sides suggest that this is not another tit-for-tat exchange – it is an all-out war, and it may not stop until one side suffers a definitive military defeat. The key question now is: Who holds the upper hand – geopolitically, strategically, and militarily? The answer, at least for now, appears to favor Israel. Iran is entering this war from a position of profound weakness. Its strategic alliances and regional influence have been severely diminished. The al-Assad regime in Syria, once a reliable partner and host to Iranian forces, collapsed following internal revolt and international isolation. Hezbollah in Lebanon, long considered Iran's most powerful proxy, has been depleted by war and Israeli airstrikes. Hamas has suffered significant setbacks in Gaza, both militarily and politically. The Iranian regime, therefore, finds itself more isolated than ever before, with its regional influence waning at a critical moment. At home, Iran faces a deeply discontented population. Widespread protests in recent years have laid bare the depth of frustration within Iranian society, particularly among the younger generation. Decades of economic hardship, international sanctions, government repression, and unmet political promises have created a volatile environment. Although the regime maintains tight control through the Revolutionary Guards and internal security forces, public morale is low and trust in leadership is deteriorating. Launching a major war at such a time poses extraordinary risks. If the military suffers major defeats or if civilian casualties mount, the government could face another wave of mass protests, this time fueled by both anger and despair. In contrast, Israel sees itself in a far stronger position. Having systematically weakened Iran's regional proxies, it now finds itself freer to act directly against Tehran without the immediate fear of multi-front retaliation. Strategically, the collapse of the Syrian regime has eliminated one of the key platforms through which Iran projected force toward Israel. Hezbollah's diminished arsenal and Hamas's recent defeats mean fewer distractions at Israel's northern and southern borders. Most importantly, Israel enjoys steadfast support from the United States, which has provided air defense coordination. From a military standpoint, the war is not expected to involve ground invasions. Instead, it is being waged almost entirely through air and missile power. And in this arena, Israel enjoys a clear and overwhelming advantage. Its air force, among the most technologically advanced in the world, includes stealth fighters, satellite-guided munitions, and electronic warfare capabilities that Iran cannot match. Israeli pilots are highly trained, and the country's air defense systems have proven themselves again and again under intense pressure. Iran, by contrast, relies heavily on older aircraft, drones, and ballistic missiles that are often intercepted before reaching their targets. While Iran can inflict damage, it lacks the ability to deliver sustained, precision strikes at the scale Israel can. Cyber capabilities also play a role, and again, Israel leads. As the dust settles from the first week of this conflict, one thing is clear: Iran's government finds itself in a deeply vulnerable and constrained position. With senior leadership eliminated, nuclear progress rolled back, air defense systems compromised, and limited retaliatory capacity, Tehran faces an uphill battle. Its options are few, and none of them are without risk. Escalation may lead to further destruction and internal unrest. Concessions may appear as weakness and erode legitimacy further. Israel, while facing inevitable costs and the unpredictability of extended war, has so far executed a well-coordinated, high-impact campaign. It controls the pace and scope of escalation and holds most of the tactical advantages. Whether it chooses to press forward with further strikes or negotiate from a position of strength will depend on evolving strategic calculations. But for now, it holds the military and geopolitical upper hand. As the world watches anxiously, the future of the Middle East hangs in the balance. This is not merely a military clash – it is a historic showdown between two regional powers, one weakened and cornered, the other emboldened and empowered. The coming weeks will determine whether this war reshapes regional order, or ignites an even wider and more devastating conflagration.
