Iran's strikes on Saudi territory – including, in the past 24 hours, the launch of an additional drone toward a refinery facility in the north of the Kingdom – could push Riyadh toward dramatic shifts in its stance toward both Iran and Israel.
In recent years, Riyadh and Tehran have renewed diplomatic relations after a prolonged period of tension. Senior Saudi commentator Abdalaziz Alkhamis told Israel Hayom that "the Iranian attack returns relations to the zone of strategic uncertainty, even if diplomatic ties do not fully collapse. Since the agreement that renewed relations between Riyadh and Tehran, the Saudi vision has been anchored in a central question: Is Iran willing to move from a policy of managing chaos through its proxies to a policy of responsible statehood? When the strikes hit Saudi or Gulf infrastructure or territory, they undermine the basic premise of that approach."
Khamis added that "in Riyadh, there is a historical conviction that Iran's behavior in the region matters more than its diplomatic declarations. Therefore, any direct or indirect escalation reinforces the school of thought that says Tehran uses détente only as a tactical pause, not as a strategic shift."
Various assessments have emerged this week regarding Saudi Arabia's potential response to the strikes on its territory, including the possibility of a military response. Khamis explained that "Saudi Arabia operates according to a policy of generally avoiding hasty reactions and preferring what can be described as 'calculated escalation.' The potential response could develop along several lines: reinforcing air and missile defense systems and raising military readiness; broader security coordination with Gulf states and the US to protect energy infrastructure and maritime routes; and diplomatic pressure to hold Iran accountable for any direct strike or one carried out through its proxies."
According to the Saudi commentator, "severing diplomatic relations is a possible option if direct involvement is proven, but Riyadh generally prefers to keep a communication channel open even in periods of tension, because it is a crisis management tool. As for a direct military response, that option is the most sensitive. Saudi Arabia has historically not sought total war with Iran, but at the same time, it regards any strike on its soil or vital facilities as a red line. In such a situation, a response could come in a limited fashion or within the framework of a regional or international coalition."
On the question of whether Saudi Arabia would want to see the Iranian regime fall, Khamis told Israel Hayom, "Saudi Arabia generally does not declare that it seeks regime change in other countries. At the top of Riyadh's priority list is changing Iranian behavior – not changing the regime itself," he clarified.
Nevertheless, the Saudi commentator noted that "in strategic discussions in the region, there is a view that much of Iran's regional policy is tied to the nature of the regime itself. Therefore, what Riyadh would actually want is for Iran to become a normal state that operates according to the rules of a nation-state rather than according to a cross-border revolutionary project. In short, the Saudi vision can be summed up in a simple equation: a stable and responsible Iran is preferable to a revolutionary and hostile Iran – but if the current policy continues, tension will continue to define the relationship."
On the question of whether the developments could lead to renewed rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Khamis explained that "escalation with Iran could accelerate strategic convergence between Riyadh and Tel Aviv, because both sides see Iran as a major regional threat. But full normalization with Saudi Arabia will remain a more complex file than the Iranian threat alone. The official Saudi position is still clear – any comprehensive agreement requires real progress on the Palestinian issue. Nevertheless, in the strategic reality of the region, indirect or security coordination between the parties may well continue if the goal is to contain the Iranian threat."
Saudi Arabia kept its distance – until Iran reshuffled everything
"In recent months, Saudi Arabia has found itself caught between several pressures and trends," Lianne Pollak-David (former Israeli national security adviser and co-founder of the Coalition for Regional Security) told Israel Hayom. "On one hand, growing internal pressures stemming from economic projects that have failed to deliver on their promises. On the other hand, mounting tensions between Riyadh and the United Arab Emirates. Added to this was Saudi Arabia's perception that it is impossible to advance diplomatic moves with the current Israeli government – something that led to the freezing of the normalization process and even to a certain, question-mark-raising, rapprochement with alternative regional partners."
According to Pollak-David, "the Iranian attack upended the chessboard. The tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE are now dissipating in the face of a common enemy, and those tensions now demand close cooperation between them – and with Israel, behind the scenes. The central open questions that remain are whether Saudi demands on the Palestinian issue will soften to focus on 'the bigger regional picture,' and whether Saudi Arabia will see Netanyahu as a leader capable of restraining his extreme coalition from damaging moves and advancing a groundbreaking diplomatic initiative."
The expert emphasized that a window of opportunity for a new regional order is opening amid the convergence of interests. "Normalization with Saudi Arabia almost slipped through our fingers after the October 7 massacre. Missing it again after Operation Roaring Lion would be a missed opportunity that Israel cannot afford."
On relations with the UAE, Khamis explained that "when a direct threat to Gulf security exists, it frequently leads to security-driven rapprochement between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. Despite tactical disagreements between the two countries on regional issues, major threats generally affirm a basic principle – Gulf security is an interconnected system. Any threat to energy facilities or shipping lanes is not perceived as a single country's issue, but as a threat to the economic and security order across the entire region."
