Why Saudi Arabia Must Face Iran Instead of Blaming Israel

By Abdulaziz Alkhamis

AI generated image of the flags of Iran, KSA and Israel

When Fear Is Disguised as Wisdom

There are articles that do not analyze politics so much as sedate it. They dress fear in the robes of wisdom, put a diplomatic tie on cowardice, and then ask people to applaud the scene as “foresight.” The argument that Saudi Arabia succeeded simply because it did not get dragged in to a war with Iran, and that the entire danger lay in an “Israeli trap,” belongs to this category: of turning the state from an actor that protects its sovereignty into a refined spectator issuing statements of condemnation while its borders, waters, and facilities are targeted by Iranian missiles and drones.

Yes, avoiding a full-scale war is wisdom if not necessary. But turning every response to aggression into “being dragged in,” every demand for deterrence into “war drums,” and every Iranian missile into an “Israeli conspiracy” is not wisdom nor statecraft; it is putting the victim on trial instead of the aggressor. As if Saudi Arabia is expected to say to Iran: strike as you wish, we are busy analyzing Israel’s intentions.

The Lesson of King Fahd and the Iran-Iraq War

Saudi history itself refutes this argument. During King Fahd’s reign, and in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War, Saudi Arabia was not a direct party to the conflict. Yet when the fire spread into Gulf waters and Iran targeted maritime navigation and ships heading to and from Saudi and Kuwaiti ports, King Fahd did not say: this is a battle Iraq engineered for us, so let us remain silent lest we fall into the trap.

The UN Security Council itself issued Resolution 552 in 1984 after a Gulf complaint over Iranian attacks on commercial vessels heading to the ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and demanded that such attacks stop.

Then came the real test. On June 5, 1984, Saudi F-15 fighter jets shot down two Iranian F-4 aircraft after they violated Saudi airspace over the Gulf. The Washington Post reported that the Iranian aircraft penetrated Saudi airspace, and Saudi Arabia scrambled additional fighters when Iran sent another wave of aircraft. More importantly, the Saudi statement described the action as an exercise of the country’s “legitimate right” to defend its coast.

Was that being dragged into a war engineered by Iraq? Of course not. It was the logic of a state that understands sovereignty is not protected by wishes. King Fahd did not declare war on Iran, nor turn the Gulf into an inferno, or play the adventurer. But he did something simple and decisive: he told the adversary that approaching Saudi airspace was not a free exercise.

The Difference Between Wisdom and Fear

The difference between wisdom and fear is that wisdom knows when to avoid war and when to impose a cost on those trying to drag you into it. Fear, by contrast, writes a long article to convince itself that silence is heroism.

That is exactly what the rhetoric of blaming everything on Israel does. Yes, Israel has its own calculations, its own project, and it may seek to pull the region into alignments that serve its security and interests. But Iran is not a political child kidnapped into battles by others. Iran is a state with a decision-making structure, a Revolutionary Guard, missiles, proxies, and a project of regional influence. When Tehran or its proxies launches drones, it is not launching them on behalf of Tel Aviv; it is doing so in defense of its own project.

Why Blaming Israel Benefits Iran

To say that responding to Iran means serving Israel is the most dangerous free service one can offer Iran. It grants Tehran a strategic license: strike the Gulf, and if they object, accuse them of being Israeli tools. Thus deterrence becomes an accusation, sovereignty becomes a misunderstanding, and the state is asked to prove its independence from Israel by staying silent before Iran.

What a brilliant equation: Iran fires the missile, Israel bears the responsibility, and the Saudi is expected to thank the writer for his wisdom.

Deterrence Is Not the Same as War

No rational person is asking Saudi Arabia to wage an open war on Iran. War is not a picnic, and oil facilities, desalination plants, and cities are not cards in a patriotic poem. But between open war and standing by as a spectator lies a wide space called deterrence.

Deterrence is not recklessness, rather it means that the adversary knows aggression has a price, that diplomacy is not a free reward for the aggressor, and that restraint does not mean the state has lost its teeth.

Even contemporary Saudi official discourse understands this balance better than some writers of justification. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan has said that Saudi Arabia retains the right to military action if necessary, while emphasizing a preference for diplomacy. That is the correct balance: we prefer politics, but we do not sign a blank check for aggression.

Sovereignty Requires Consequences

The article in question wants to make success synonymous with survival alone. But states are not measured only by whether they survived a war; they are also measured by whether they made aggression against them costly.

Had King Fahd acted according to the logic of these writers, he would have said at the time: do not shoot down the Iranian aircraft, this is an Iraqi plan; do not defend the tankers, this is Saddam’s game; do not draw a line in the Gulf, someone might say we served Baghdad. But he did not. He knew that a state which confuses not being dragged into war with not practicing deterrence opens the door to blackmail.

Saudi Arabia Cannot Turn Fear Into Doctrine

The bitter irony is that some writers believe they are defending Saudi Arabia when they ask it to tolerate “the injustice of the neighbor.” What kind of neighbor is this, whose feelings must be spared while he threatens oil, water, and cities?

In politics, good neighborliness does not mean turning the state into a testing wall for missiles. And in morality, it is not wisdom to ask the homeowner to smile at the person throwing stones at his windows, then explain to him that the stones may have been caused by a conspiracy from a third neighbor.

The truly national response is not a call for war, but a refusal to turn fear into a doctrine. Saudi Arabia does not need someone to lecture it about wisdom, nor someone to sell it an old recipe titled: stay silent so you appear rational. A rational state does not get dragged in, yes. But it also does not allow anyone to drag it by the nose.

Conclusion: The Meaning of Real Deterrence

That was King Fahd’s logic: we do not seek war, but we do not apologize for defending our country. That is the lesson that should remain.

As for those who want to make every Iranian missile a commentary on Israel’s behavior, their problem is not only analytical; it is a problem of compass. A compass that can see the aggressor only through his enemy may be useful for writing excuses, but not for building security.

Abdulaziz AlKhamis is co-founder of MiddleEast24 and senior contributor. A Saudi journalist based in the UAE, he is an analyst and researcher of Middle East affairs and radical Islam, and a television host and news editor at top Arab media outlets.