In the volatile Middle East, a region drained by wars, restraint is frequently misunderstood as an ineffective strategy, while reckless ventures and gambles that produce decades of chaos are often marketed as success. However, an analysis of reality and outcomes reveals the opposite; igniting the fuse of war is far easier than extinguishing its fires. Furthermore, rushing to respond without a clear strategy and deep consideration of the consequences means that crisis-makers have succeeded in dragging stable countries into the furnace of chaos, dictating the timing of the confrontation, and imposing the battle upon them.
From this perspective, the Saudi policy of "restraint" can be understood as an effective strategy employed to protect a sustainable project focused on the state, development, and stability. The virtue of stability is the key to understanding Saudi traditions in handling crises. Consequently, Riyadh remains keen on managing security challenges within the framework of its overarching national project, recognizing that external targeting aims to obstruct the very concept of stability - along with the subsequent economic activity, development, and investor confidence. Most importantly, the attacks aim to disrupt the peace of mind of citizens and residents, who live as though the surrounding conflicts are occurring in a remote region.
The Saudi challenge, which time has proven Riyadh capable of managing with great success, lies in addressing a highly complex dilemma: how to deter militias and their backers without granting them the very chaos they require as fuel for their existence and survival? It is widely understood that these entities, which fall short of state logic, derive their legitimacy from perpetual conflict, reinvesting their failures into imagined and illusory victories simply because they possess no viable project outside the brackets of war.
Consequently, a state of stability returns them to the cycle of failure and exposes their inability to transition from mobilizing supporters and justifying weaponry to assuming governance responsibilities and meeting the needs of their societies. This leaves them exposed before their own citizens, a reality clear to anyone observing how populations living under these failed states interact - they are no longer concerned with slogans as much as they care about security, development, and their future.
This dynamic applies not only to sub-state entities, such as militias and proxies operating for foreign interests, but also to Iran itself. It is evident that the Tehran regime shifts toward a strategy of domestic mobilization whenever external confrontations intensify, as war has allowed it to postpone questions regarding the economy, the daily lives of its citizens, and the cost of its expansionist project. As a result, any cessation of conflict will inevitably bring domestic crisis questions back to the forefront. Along with these questions, it will become impossible to address the deep gap between the resources drained by escalation and proxy funding abroad, and the development and stability expected by the Iranian citizen.
Saudi Arabia's resort to and necessity for limited strikes in Iraq, for instance, might raise questions regarding its relationship with the policy of "restraint" and wisdom in handling crises. However, an astute reading confirms that these "exceptional" operations fall within the exact same strategy. They aimed to prevent Iran and its proxies from miscalculating the Saudi stance, and to re-establish deterrence by targeting the sources of threat without expanding the scope of confrontation. This keeps the use of force and its timing linked to the overarching political goal: protecting the "virtue of stability."
This is precisely what Saudi Arabia has been keen to emphasize in all its statements, which explicitly affirmed the right to respond at the appropriate time and place, linking its actions to international legitimacy, law, and the right to self-defense. Here lies the difference between the logic of a state and the logic of a militia; a state restricts force by interest, legitimacy, and the calculation of outcomes, whereas unstable states employing militias resort to creating environments of chaos to justify their survival.
Anyone observing Saudi strategy in handling crises over the decades clearly recognizes that calculating outcomes is not a makeshift approach, but a well-established tradition. This was evident during the occupation of Kuwait, when the Kingdom contributed to building a broad Arab and international legitimacy to liberate it. It was later repeated in Yemen by combining the confrontation of the coup with the preservation of the state. It also appeared clearly during the turmoil of the so-called "Arab Spring," when Riyadh realized early on that toppling institutions is far easier than rebuilding them after a state collapse, and that any vacuum created following the fall of regimes - even weak ones - is often filled by extremist organizations and militias. We saw how this Saudi approach was consolidated in post-Assad Syria, where Saudi Arabia wagered, and continues to wager, on the unity and stability of the state.
The Makkah Joint Defense Agreement between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan, alongside the maritime alliance in the Red Sea, is nothing but an extension of this proactive strategy. This is especially true given the policies of retrenchment and the decline of major powers from direct engagement in Middle East crises. Riyadh has been keen on building a regional deterrence that raises the cost of aggression, while simultaneously opening the door for other countries to join that share an interest in protecting stability and international waterways.
The strategy of the "virtue of stability" will remain key to understanding Saudi policy, even if it remains incomprehensible to the proponents of chaotic projects. This is because it stems from the wisdom of a state that combines deterrent power with an astute calculation of outcomes, placing the nation, the sustainability of its development, and the preservation of its achievements at the forefront of its priorities.
