As complex analyses emerge over the backdrop of the United States launching a sudden military operation against Iran, Saudi Arabia, which is seeking hegemony in the Middle East, reportedly egged on U.S. President Donald Trump to fully topple Iran's regime in this war. It is said to have conveyed to the U.S. a hard-line position that goes beyond merely striking Iranian military facilities and aims to end the current Islamic theocratic system itself.
According to a compilation of major outlets, including the New York Times (NYT), on the 25th, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman called President Trump last week and strongly urged him to "persist with military operations with the goal of regime collapse in Iran."
Saudi Arabia believes that if Iran, which controls the Strait of Hormuz, the world's oil shipping route, remains intact, the same security threat could recur at any time. Accordingly, Crown Prince bin Salman reportedly persuaded President Trump with the argument that now is a historic turning point to fundamentally overturn Iran's dominance in the Middle East and restructure the regional order around Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi government officially denied that reports encouraging escalation were true. If it is entangled as a party to the war, it could become a target of Iranian retaliation. It would also have to shoulder the brunt of international criticism over a surge in global oil prices. Saudi Arabia normalized diplomatic relations with Iran in 2023 and entered a thaw, but during the current war Iran mounted fierce attacks on Saudi oil fields and refineries, plunging the two back into a cold war. Yasmeen Farouk, Gulf director at the International Crisis Group (ICG), said in an NYT interview, "Saudi also wants the war to end, but how it ends matters."
President Trump is stressing that the attack on Iran was entirely his decision as he sets domestic political calculations in motion. Citing concerns over the massive war cost, he sidelined Vice President JD Vance, who opposed escalation, and put Defense Minister Pete Hegseth, who advocated a preemptive strike, at the forefront of the airstrike decision. He is repeatedly exposing Hegseth to the media as the aide who first pushed the war. The prevailing assessment is that this is a thorough move to evade responsibility by dispersing the political blame and criticism that could erupt if the U.S. sinks into an escalation quagmire or public opinion turns sour onto his aides.