The joint military campaign by the United States and Israel is being viewed as a significant opportunity to reshape the Middle East by Mohammed bin Salman. According to U.S. officials, he has been applying diplomatic pressure on Donald Trump to continue operations against Iran and capitalize on the current Situation . In several recent discussions, he has indicated that Iran’s current government poses a long-term threat to regional stability and that meaningful change is necessary.
At the same time, Benjamin Netanyahu also considers Iran a persistent security threat. However, analysts suggest that Israel’s strategic perspective may differ slightly, as a weakened or internally divided Iran could potentially serve its interests. In contrast, Saudi Arabia fears that instability or state failure in Iran could directly translate into severe security risks for the Kingdom.
There is also growing concern among U.S. and Saudi policymakers that a prolonged conflict could provoke Iran into launching more aggressive attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure, potentially drawing the United States into a prolonged and costly war. Publicly, Trump has delivered mixed signals—at times suggesting a quick end to the conflict, while at other moments indicating the possibility of escalation—creating uncertainty about his overall strategy. He has also claimed on social media that constructive discussions with Iran have taken place to end hostilities, a claim that Tehran has denied.
The conflict has already had a noticeable impact on global energy markets. Iran’s retaliatory drone and missile strikes have disrupted oil supply routes and increased volatility in international markets. Despite this, Saudi officials have maintained that they support a peaceful resolution and are continuing diplomatic engagement, emphasizing that their primary concern is the protection of civilians and critical infrastructure.
Sources familiar with internal discussions indicate that while Trump has occasionally shown openness to de-escalation, Saudi leadership believes that withdrawing at this stage could be a strategic mistake. They have reportedly advocated for weakening Iran’s military and energy capabilities, including discussions around targeting key infrastructure. The White House, however, has declined to comment on private conversations.
Analysts argue that Saudi Arabia’s position is influenced not only by political considerations but also by economic realities. Rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have disrupted oil transportation, placing significant pressure on Gulf economies. Although alternative pipeline routes exist, they are limited in capacity and remain vulnerable to attacks.
A major concern for Saudi policymakers is that an incomplete resolution of the conflict could embolden Iran, making it more aggressive in the future and further destabilizing the region. Past attacks on oil facilities have reinforced these fears. At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s long-term economic ambitions could be at risk. The Kingdom aims to transform itself into a global economic hub by 2030, but ongoing conflict threatens investment, trade, and tourism.
In conclusion, Saudi officials have reiterated that their primary objective is to ensure regional security and stop Iranian attacks. To achieve this, they are prepared to utilize all available tools—political, economic, and diplomatic—while carefully navigating the complex and evolving dynamics of the conflict.
Prince Mohammed told Trump that the fall of Iran’s hardline government must be ensured.
