Diriyah... A Starting Point, Castle of Glories, Threat to Empires

 Archive photo of Diriyah’s Al-Turaif ruins in Saudi Arabia (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Archive photo of Diriyah’s Al-Turaif ruins in Saudi Arabia (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT
20

Diriyah... A Starting Point, Castle of Glories, Threat to Empires

 Archive photo of Diriyah’s Al-Turaif ruins in Saudi Arabia (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Archive photo of Diriyah’s Al-Turaif ruins in Saudi Arabia (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Strong and fortified cities in the middle of the Arabian Peninsula, such as Diriyah and Uyaynah, have withstood the test of time, transforming from small towns founded in the middle of the fifth century to significant “city-states” that would later leave an impact on history.

Nestled on the banks of the Wadi Al-Ard valley, which cuts through the Tuwaiq Mountains, Diriyah occupies one of the best sites in terms of space, soil fertility, and suitability for settlement.

Diriyah was a threat and an obsession for kingdoms and empires four centuries ago. It was mentioned in Ottoman, British, and Persian archives and the writings of countrymen and travelers. It was popularly regarded in the first Saudi state as a rising power in the Arabian Peninsula.

“If an attack is not launched against it (Diriyah), then it will be able to defeat all the kingdoms,” era leaders would say, prompting a foreign invasion that would later destroy the historical city-state.

Centuries ago, Diriyah was a vital station on the caravan route that extended from the Red Sea to the Gulf of Basra.

Diriyah was famous for its beautiful stone-built homes. Teeming with mosques and schools since ancient times, Diriyah was surrounded by sprawling fields of wheat and barley and palm, peach, and fig groves.

It was also known for raising Iraqi purebred Arabian horses, whose fame reached kingdoms and other countries.

As the first capital of Saudi Arabia, Diriyah laid the building blocks for establishing the Saudi state. From Diriyah, Imam Muhammad bin Saud launched an integration project that would transform the city-state into a comprehensive state and bring the entire Arabian Peninsula under a united and stable political umbrella.

Diriyah is one of the most ancient Najdi cities, as it was founded on the banks of Wadi Hanifa in 1446.

Mani’ al-Muraydi worked hard to build and establish Diriyah as one of the strongest independent emirates of Nejd. Diriyah played a significant role in securing pilgrimage routes and transit trade from the east of the Arabian Peninsula to the west.

Several princes successively ruled the city of Diriyah until Imam Muhammad bin Saud, the founder of the first Saudi state, came to power in 1727.

As a city-state, Diriyah relied on its capabilities and good governance policies to emerge as the most suitable place for creating a state that includes most parts of the Arabian Peninsula. Prosperity and development were critical themes for Diriyah in the middle of the eighteenth century.

After recognizing education as a conduit for impacting change, Saudi imams transformed Diriyah into a center for attracting scholars and students alike. Diriyah’s Al-Turaif and Al-Bujairi neighborhoods became a prominent hub for knowledge and scholars.

Books and teaching circles spread in mosques, scholars’ homes, and public markets. This activated a writing, scientific and cultural movement.

As a capital, Diriyah attracted delegations of countries and tribes that pledged allegiance to Saudi imams. This expanded its influence and increased its strength, status, and importance, shaping it as a center for managing the state’s political, administrative, and military affairs.

Citizen Engagement with Leadership

Imam Muhammad bin Saud’s determination to achieve change in the Arabian Peninsula after he assumed power in 1727 saw him launching a unification project for Najd.

Spanning the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, Najd suffered from political divisions and significant disintegration among the people. This made unification one of the most difficult and trying challenges that would take a long time to be achieved.

The founding imam, however, gained victories after personally supervising the building of a strong army of citizens who believed in him and his new vision.

Imam Muhammad bin Saud trained the people, financed them with money and weapons, and took over their leadership. His leadership gave great moral support to the army.

The founding imam managed to convince different segments of society to join his unity project.

Imam Muhammad bin Saud would send an invitation from Diriyah to the countries and tribes affiliated with him to participate in the unification operations, and they would, in turn, promptly send a group of cavalry and soldiers to the place of battle.

After the unification of Najd, campaigns were launched toward other regions in the Arabian Peninsula under the era of Imam Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad, who was able to prepare and deploy a solid army to annex Al-Ahsa region in 1796.

Under Imam Saud bin Abd Al-Aziz, the state could unite most of the regions of the Arabian Peninsula until the state crowned the unity project by annexing the Hijaz in 1805.

Under the first Saudi state, the Arabian Peninsula enjoyed political and security stability, and economic and scientific life flourished. They had a close relationship with their wise leadership.

The people regretted the end of the first Saudi state and the return of conditions to what they were before its establishment.

Nevertheless, after seven years, they gathered and backed Imam Turki bin Abdullah in reestablishing the Saudi state in 1824. The people would later support Imam Faisal bin Turki in the unification process once again.

In 1902, King Abdulaziz returned to Riyadh with a determination to rebuild the state and advance it to the ranks of modern, developed countries after conditions there had deteriorated greatly.

A political vacuum followed the fall of the second Saudi state. But as soon as King Abdulaziz announced Saudi rule anew in the capital, Riyadh, countries and tribes offered allegiance to him, expressing their support for the unification operations he was leading.

Saudis gave their lives and money in service of their homeland until King Abdulaziz announced the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

The current Saudi leadership, under directives of King Salman bin Abdulaziz and the direct follow-up and supervision of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has put forward a project to rehabilitate and develop Diriyah and preserve its historical and cultural heritage.

The project is considered the largest heritage project in the world and has gained local, regional, and international fame. Diriyah is destined to become one of Saudi Arabia’s most remarkable landmarks and tourist destinations. It will restore its former glories and tell the world the story of a promising small town that once turned into the capital of the first Saudi state.



From India-Pakistan to Iran and Ukraine, a New Era of Escalation

The Iron Dome, the Israeli air defense system, intercepts missiles fired from Iran, over Tel Aviv, Israel, 17 June 2025. (EPA)
The Iron Dome, the Israeli air defense system, intercepts missiles fired from Iran, over Tel Aviv, Israel, 17 June 2025. (EPA)
TT
20

From India-Pakistan to Iran and Ukraine, a New Era of Escalation

The Iron Dome, the Israeli air defense system, intercepts missiles fired from Iran, over Tel Aviv, Israel, 17 June 2025. (EPA)
The Iron Dome, the Israeli air defense system, intercepts missiles fired from Iran, over Tel Aviv, Israel, 17 June 2025. (EPA)

By Peter Apps

As India’s defense chief attended an international security conference in Singapore in May, soon after India and Pakistan fought what many in South Asia now dub “the four-day war”, he had a simple message: Both sides expect to do it all again.

It was a stark and perhaps counterintuitive conclusion: the four-day military exchange, primarily through missiles and drones, appears to have been among the most serious in history between nuclear-armed nations.

Indeed, reports from both sides suggest it took a direct intervention from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to halt an escalating exchange of drones and rockets.

Speaking to a Reuters colleague in Singapore, however, Indian Chief of Defense Staff General Anil Chauhan denied either nation had come close to the “nuclear threshold”, describing a “lot of messaging” from both sides.

“A new space for conventional operations has been created and I think that is the new norm,” he said, vowing that New Delhi would continue to respond militarily to any militant attacks on India suspected to have originated from Pakistan.

How stable that "space" might be and how great the risk of escalation for now remains unclear. However, there have been several dramatic examples of escalation in several already volatile global stand-offs over the past two months.

As well as the “four-day” war between India and Pakistan last month, recent weeks have witnessed what is now referred to in Israel and Iran as their “12-day war”. It ended this week with a US-brokered ceasefire after Washington joined the fray with massive air strikes on Tehran’s underground nuclear sites.

Despite years of confrontation, Israel and Iran had not struck each other’s territory directly until last year, while successive US administrations have held back from similar steps.

As events in Ukraine have shown, conflict between major nations can become normalized at speed – whether that means “just” an exchange of drones and missiles, or a more existential battle.

More concerning still, such conflicts appear to have become more serious throughout the current decade, with plenty of room for further escalation.

This month, that included an audacious set of Ukrainian-organized drone strikes on long-range bomber bases deep inside Russian territory, destroying multiple aircraft which, as well as striking Ukraine, have also been responsible for carrying the Kremlin’s nuclear deterrent.

All of that is a far cry from the original Cold War, in which it was often assumed that any serious military clash – particularly involving nuclear forces or the nations that possessed them – might rapidly escalate beyond the point of no return. But it does bring with it new risks of escalation.

Simmering in the background, meanwhile, is the largest and most dangerous confrontation of them all - that between the US and China, with US officials saying Beijing has instructed its military to be prepared to move against Taiwan from 2027, potentially sparking a hugely wider conflict.

As US President Donald Trump headed to Europe this week for the annual NATO summit, just after bombing Iran, it was clear his administration hopes such a potent show of force might be enough to deter Beijing in particular from pushing its luck.

“American deterrence is back,” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Pentagon press briefing the morning after the air strikes took place.

Iran’s initial response of drones and missiles fired at a US air base in Qatar – with forewarning to the US that the fusillade was coming – appeared deliberately moderate to avoid further escalation.

Addressing senators at their confirmation hearing on Tuesday, America’s next top commanders in Europe and the Middle East were unanimous in their comments that the US strikes against Iran would strengthen Washington's hand when it came to handling Moscow and Beijing.

Chinese media commentary was more mixed. Han Peng, head of state-run China Media Group's North American operations, said the US had shown weakness to the world by not wanting to get dragged into the Iran conflict due to its “strategic contraction”.

Other social media posts talked of how vulnerable Iran looked, with nationalist commentator Hu Xijn warning: "If one day we have to get involved in a war, we must be the best at it."

LONG ARM OF AMERICA

On that front, the spectacle of multiple US B-2 bombers battering Iran’s deepest-buried nuclear bunkers - having flown all the way from the US mainland apparently undetected - will not have gone unnoticed in Moscow or Beijing.

Nor will Trump’s not so subtle implications that unless Iran backed down, similar weapons might be used to kill its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or other senior figures, wherever they might hide.

None of America’s adversaries have the ability to strike without warning in that way against hardened, deepened targets, and the B-2 – now being replaced by the more advanced B-21 – has no foreign equal.

Both are designed to penetrate highly sophisticated air defenses, although how well they would perform against cutting-edge Russian or Chinese systems would only be revealed in an actual conflict.

China’s effort at building something similar, the H-2, has been trailed in Chinese media for years – and US officials say Beijing is striving hard to make it work.

Both China and Russia have fifth-generation fighters with some stealth abilities, but none have the range or carrying capacity to target the deepest Western leadership or weapons bunkers with conventional munitions.

As a result, any Chinese or Russian long-range strikes – whether conventional or nuclear – would have to be launched with missiles that could be detected in advance.

Even without launching such weapons, however, nuclear powers have their own tools to deliver threats.

An analysis of the India-Pakistan “four-day war” in May done by the Stimson Center suggested that as Indian strikes became more serious on the third day of the war, Pakistan might have taken similar, deliberately visible steps to ready its nuclear arsenal to grab US attention and help conclude the conflict.

Indian newspapers have reported that a desperate Pakistan did indeed put pressure on the US to encourage India to stop, as damage to its forces was becoming increasingly serious, and threatening the government.

Pakistan denies that – but one of its most senior officers was keen to stress that any repeat of India’s strikes would bring atomic risk.

"Nothing happened this time," said the chairman of the Pakistani joint chiefs, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, also speaking to Reuters at the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore. "But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time."

For now, both sides have pulled back troops from the border – while India appears determined to use longer term strategies to undermine its neighbor, including withdrawing from a treaty controlling the water supplies of the Indus River, which Indian Prime Minister Modi said he now intends to dam. Pakistani officials have warned that could be another act of war.

DRONES AND DETERRENCE

Making sure Iran never obtains the leverage of a working atomic bomb, of course, was a key point of the US and Israeli air strikes. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed that the dangers of a government so hostile to Israel obtaining such a weapon would always be intolerable.

For years, government and private sector analysts had predicted Iran might respond to an assault on its nuclear facilities with attacks by its proxies across the Middle East, including on Israel from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, as well as using thousands of missiles, drones and attack craft to block international oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.

In reality, the threat of an overwhelming US military response – and hints of an accompanying switch of US policy to outright regime change or decapitation in Iran, coupled with the Israeli military success against Hezbollah and Hamas, appear to have forced Tehran to largely stand down.

What that means longer term is another question.

Flying to the Netherlands on Tuesday for the NATO summit, Trump appeared to be offering Iran under its current Shi'ite Muslim clerical rulers a future as a “major trading nation” providing they abandoned their atomic program.

The Trump administration is also talking up the success of its Operation ROUGH RIDER against the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen.

Vice Admiral Bradley Cooper, selected as the new head of US Central Command, told senators the US military had bombed the Houthis for 50 days before a deal was struck in which the Houthis agreed to stop attacking US and other international shipping in the Red Sea.

But Cooper also noted that like other militant groups in the Middle East, the Houthis were becoming increasingly successful in building underground bases out of the reach of smaller US weapons, as well as using unmanned systems to sometimes overwhelm their enemies.

“The nature and character of warfare is changing before our very eyes,” he said.

Behind the scenes and sometimes in public, US and allied officials say they are still assessing the implications of the success of Ukraine and Israel in infiltrating large numbers of short-range drones into Russia and Iran respectively for two spectacular attacks in recent weeks.

According to Ukrainian officials, the drones were smuggled into Russia hidden inside prefabricated buildings on the back of trucks, with the Russian drivers unaware of what they were carrying until the drones were launched.

Israel’s use of drones on the first day of its campaign against Iran is even more unsettling for Western nations wondering what such an attack might look like.

Its drones were smuggled into Iran and in some cases assembled in secret there to strike multiple senior Iranian leaders and officials in their homes as they slept in the small hours of the morning on the first day of the campaign.

As they met in The Hague this week for their annual summit, NATO officials and commanders will have considered what they must do to build their own defenses to ensure they do not prove vulnerable to a similar attack.

Judging by reports in the Chinese press, military officials there are now working on the same.