Anyone who reflects on the history of the Saudi state and follows its approach to crises and confrontations will recognize that one of the hallmarks of its policy is strategic patience and the ability to distinguish between fixed objectives and changing means. Saudis do not measure the success of their policies by how quickly results are achieved, but rather by their ability to attain their goals and preserve the gains that follow.
In this year’s annual royal address to the Shura Council, delivered by the Crown Prince on behalf of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, there was a notable reference to the “successive transformations” the world is witnessing. This observation invites reflection on the nature of a period in which the outcomes of many events are difficult to predict.
Here, the importance of distinguishing between clarity of purpose and the difficulty of predicting how objectives will be achieved becomes evident. Patience in politics is not passive waiting. It is continuous work, sound judgment in identifying opportunities, and readiness to make the right decision at the right time.
Amid the region’s continuing turmoil, Saudi Arabia has, since the reign of King Abdulaziz, faced numerous challenges and adversaries whose slogans, motives, and methods have varied. These have ranged from rebellions and the rise of Arab nationalism and ideological conflicts, to the policies of certain regional regimes, waves of terrorism, and, more recently, challenges associated with the Iranian project and the armed militias allied with it. These confrontations were not identical in nature or objectives, but they tested the Saudi state’s ability to safeguard its security and the independence of its decision-making.
While these confrontations differed in their circumstances and causes, their outcomes merit reflection. The Nasserist project receded; the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and others fell; terrorism was defeated; and movements that once raised slogans about transforming the region declined. Meanwhile, the Saudi state continued to build its institutions, develop its economy, and strengthen its international standing.
Here lies an important point for understanding the difference between projects that tie their futures to the slogans of the moment and states that view their interests within a longer historical context. The Iranian project perhaps offers a contemporary example of this contrast.
After the Houthis seized control of Sanaa in 2014, Iranian political rhetoric frequently spoke of four Arab capitals having fallen within Tehran’s sphere of influence: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Sanaa. This reflected a period in which the Iranian project appeared to be at the height of its expansion, capitalizing on the weakness of state institutions in some countries. But where are those capitals twelve years later?
In Damascus, the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024 cost Iran one of its most important allies and severed a key link in the extension of its influence. In Beirut, Hezbollah suffered military and political losses, and the balance of power shifted. In Baghdad, national interests continue to intersect with the influence of various regional powers. And now Sanaa is preparing to free itself from Houthi domination.
The more important question, however, concerns not only how much influence Iran still retains, but also what it gained from its regional project and what it lost in pursuing it. Tehran acquired instruments of influence beyond its borders, but it also faced sanctions and economic pressure, while its allies suffered losses. This culminated in the US-Israeli war and the military and economic burdens it imposed, along with repercussions that affected the entire region.
The Saudi project, by contrast, proceeded along a different path: a state investing its resources in diversifying its economy, developing infrastructure, expanding investment and employment opportunities, and strengthening its international standing. Saudi Arabia was not insulated from the costs of regional turmoil, but it made development a central element of its strategic calculations.
This raises a question: after years of conflict, what tangible benefits remain for a state and its people as a result of their political choices? Possessing influence beyond one’s borders does not necessarily translate into security and prosperity at home. Likewise, successful development projects require a stable regional environment capable of protecting their gains.
This does not mean that Saudis avoid confrontation regardless of the scale of the threat, or that their focus on development makes them less prepared to defend their country. They do not seek wars, but they understand that preserving security and stability carries material and human costs, and that attacks on their territory and facilities must be addressed in a manner that safeguards the Kingdom’s security and sovereignty.
Their experience has also taught them that strategic patience is not incompatible with firmness, and that having the capacity to respond does not necessarily require rushing to deploy every instrument of power. Wisdom lies neither in always avoiding confrontation nor in engaging in it after every provocation, but in knowing when confrontation is necessary, how it should be managed, and what it should ultimately achieve.
The 2015 decision by the Coalition to Support Legitimacy to intervene in Yemen was not contrary to this approach. Making a swift decision when a threat emerges does not mean expecting immediate results, just as a prolonged confrontation does not eliminate the need to reassess the means being employed and evaluate their costs. Resolute action to protect security is one thing; building sustainable political stability is another, even if the two are interconnected.
From this perspective, Sanaa’s future can be understood. Restoring the capital from Houthi control is an objective of Yemen’s internationally recognized government, and it is also linked to Saudi Arabia’s interest in seeing a stable Yemeni state whose institutions control their own decision-making and whose territory is not used as a launching pad for threats against its neighbors or strategic waterways.
This, in turn, entails efforts to rebuild state institutions, achieve national reconciliation, and address the consequences of the war. Caution in choosing the means should therefore not be interpreted as retreating from the objectives. The important question after a military resolution is: how can lasting stability be ensured?
Against the backdrop of the confrontation with the Houthis, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques has issued directives responding to a request from the chairman of Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council to begin procedures to regularize the status of Yemenis residing in Saudi Arabia without legal status.
Adversaries have changed, as have their slogans and alliances. The methods of confrontation and the circumstances surrounding them have changed as well. Yet the Saudi experience has continued to offer a model that combines clarity of objectives, flexibility in the means employed, and adherence to principles. This equation is becoming increasingly important in a region where events are accelerating, balances of power are shifting, and the outcomes of conflicts are difficult to predict.
It remains to be said that we are faced with two competing logics: the logic of revolution and militias, whose effects and consequences are evident for all to see, and the logic of the state, which the Crown Prince summarized in a televised interview in 2017 when he said that the Saudi Armed Forces could uproot the Houthi militias within a matter of days, but that Saudi Arabia would not do so in order to protect civilian lives in Yemen and avoid casualties among Saudi forces.
The Saudis are in no hurry, but neither are they oblivious to what is happening around them. They know when to be patient and when to act decisively. They understand that defending the homeland does not conflict with building its future, and that states are measured not by the wars they fight, but by the security they preserve and the stability and prosperity they achieve for their people.
As for the pace, as always, it is not dictated by the headlines.
