The Fall of the Neutrality Mask: Why Saudi Arabia Must Pay the Full Price for Its Choices

History—both diplomatic and military—demonstrates that in moments of decisive geopolitical transformation and total war, no actor can escape the consequences of a new regional order behind the façade of “claimed neutrality” or the practice of playing both sides.

The military legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte offers a striking historical parallel. As he confronted traditional monarchies such as Prussia and Austria, each defeat was followed by professions of peace and diplomatic smiles toward France, while those same powers secretly conspired with his enemies behind the scenes.

Napoleon understood a fundamental strategic reality:

“Whoever stands at the intersection of rival powers while claiming neutrality is either dangerously naïve or lying in wait for the moment to strike from behind. Therefore, the matter must be settled by forcing such actors into the heart of the conflict so they bear the full cost of betrayal and duplicity.”

This historical principle, according to the argument presented here, is the key to understanding the dynamics of the current conflict and the conduct of Saudi Arabia.

These practices can be traced back to April 2025, two months before the outbreak of the Twelve-Day War, when Prince Khalid bin Salman traveled to Tehran on a high-profile visit that included meetings with senior Iranian officials and even a visit to the now-martyred commander.

At the time, some internal assessments embraced the illusion that diplomatic engagement had broken the cycle of hostility. Subsequent events, however, allegedly demonstrated the futility of that assumption. The visit, according to this interpretation, served instead as a carefully orchestrated intelligence and reconnaissance mission that helped prepare the ground for future American-Israeli military action.

Only two months later, the major war erupted, and the White House effectively delivered the final blow to any remaining prospects for a negotiated settlement.

Meanwhile, Khalid bin Salman and Riyadh’s role extended well beyond what was visible publicly. As journalist Barak Ravid reported in Axios in late January 2026—following unrest inside Iran and roughly one month before military operations began—the prince reportedly told U.S. officials that President Trump’s reluctance to carry out his threats against Tehran would only embolden Iran.

According to the report, they discussed the possibility of a direct American military strike, highlighting the sharp contrast between Riyadh’s cautious public rhetoric and its far more assertive private communications.

When a new phase of confrontation began in February, following the martyrdom of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Riyadh found itself exposed at the center of the storm. Iranian military forces—partially freed from centralized operational constraints—reportedly launched attacks against Saudi targets, while Iraqi resistance factions carried out heavy strikes against Saudi infrastructure.

Saudi Arabia nevertheless managed, through political maneuvering, to gain the confidence of certain Iranian circles, resulting in the Kingdom’s temporary removal from Iran’s target list. That situation changed, according to this account, when the Quds Force broke the aerial blockade imposed on Yemen under the pretext of facilitating the funeral ceremonies of the martyred commander, forcing Saudi Arabia into direct confrontation.