The claim was explosive. According to the Washington Post, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman repeatedly phoned US President Donald Trump, urging him to take the fight to Tehran. The Post said the Saudi leader made “multiple private phone calls” to Trump, pushing for an attack while publicly preaching diplomacy. In a region where rumours often ignite wars, such reporting carries consequences.
Within hours, the Saudi officials in Washington dismissed the story. “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been consistent in supporting diplomatic efforts to reach a credible deal with Iran,” a spokesperson wrote; “at no point in all our communication with the Trump administration did we lobby the President to adopt a different policy”. The same statement reminded readers that Riyadh had counselled dialogue and refused to allow its territory or airspace to be used for the strikes.
The embassy’s tone hints at genuine frustration: Saudi diplomats have spent years pivoting from being viewed as Washington’s blunt instrument to being seen as a pragmatic broker, and a single anonymous-sourced story can undo that work.
Saudi-Iranian relations have warmed since the 2023 Beijing?brokered rapprochement, which restored diplomatic ties after years of cold conflict.
Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have spent decades branding themselves as sanctuaries of stability, yet Iranian missiles and drones have hit US bases, oil refineries and even luxury hotels. Three days into the conflict, only one concrete military warning emerged from Riyadh. This restraint has tactical and cultural roots. Arab leaders worry that striking Iran after the assassination of the Shia world’s most prominent cleric could paint them as stooges of Washington or allies of Israel. They also remember how Iranian leaders threatened to hit “the palaces of the kings” should any Arab regime join the assault. The Gulf economies depend on oil infrastructure and shipping lanes; burning down Aramco installations, as happened when drones ignited refineries inside Saudi Arabia, is a reminder that miscalculation could wreck both oil markets and domestic legitimacy. Seen through that prism, the Post’s suggestion that Riyadh secretly lobbied for war is not merely wrong; it is dangerous. Saudi-Iranian relations have warmed since the 2023 Beijing?brokered rapprochement, which restored diplomatic ties after years of cold conflict.
Meanwhile, Riyadh continues to abide by the Beijing Declaration by refusing to allow its ground or airspace to be used to attack Iran. The indiscriminate retaliation against Gulf cities has squandered any sympathy it might have generated and confirmed fears that Tehran’s missile programme is a menace to regional stability.
War is not in Saudi Arabia’s interest, or that of any Gulf state, and the success of Riyadh, Dubai and Doha should be replicated rather than reduced to rubble.
International reaction underscores this caution. The International Atomic Energy Agency says there is “no evidence of any radiological impact” from the strikes but urges restraint and warns of nuclear safety risks. Leaders across Turkiye, Malaysia, Indonesia, Spain, Germany, the UK and Scandinavia have urged an immediate ceasefire. Malaysia’s prime minister condemned the attacks as a “despicable attempt to sabotage ongoing negotiations”, while Spain’s Pedro Sánchez branded the strikes “illegal and unilateral” and a threat to the world order. The European Union called for maximum restraint and respect for international law, and even allies like Finland warned that the U.S. was “operating largely outside traditional international law.”
Pakistan’s reaction illustrates the delicate balancing acts being performed. Islamabad condemned the “unwarranted” US-Israeli strikes on Iran and also criticised Tehran’s retaliatory attacks on Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE. A Pakistani national was among the dead in the UAE, and the foreign ministry urged all sides to avoid actions that undermine regional security. Islamabad will not relish choosing between its largest benefactor and its neighbours across the Persian Gulf. Expect parliamentarians to debate whether neutrality can still be maintained, and whether Pakistan should play a mediating role akin to Oman’s.
The deeper critique here concerns how easily narratives can be bent to fit preconceived frames. For years, Western commentators have portrayed the Saudi crown prince as an impetuous strongman keen to settle scores with Iran. That caricature overshadows a more complex reality in which bin Salman has sought to diversify the economy, end the Yemen war and normalise relations with Israel while also repairing ties with Tehran. It also ignores the significant progress Iran and Saudi Arabia made under Chinese mediation. Misreporting not only risks misjudging Riyadh’s intentions; it can help hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv build a case that Arab allies secretly support regime change in Iran.
Perhaps the most poignant detail analysis is not an official statement but an image: black smoke rising from a warehouse in Sharjah after Iranian strikes. Ordinary Gulf residents – office workers, drivers, housekeepers – watched the skyline of their supposedly invulnerable cities darken. They remember the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, when American promises of protection came at the price of stationing troops on sacred soil. They recall the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which unleashed sectarian militias that later flowed into Syria and Yemen. They fear that this war could turn Dubai’s skyscrapers and Doha’s corniche into new front lines.
This context matters because the wider debate about the future of the Middle East now pits two visions against each other. One is the maximalist project embraced by hawks in Washington and Israel, who believe that the removal of Iran’s clerical regime will usher in a democratic, Western?friendly order. The other is the emergent Gulf consensus that de?escalation, economic integration and religious coexistence are better guarantors of stability. Saudi Arabia’s insistence on diplomacy, Pakistan’s careful condemnation of both sides, and the IAEA’s warnings about nuclear safety all point to a recognition that bombing a great civilisation into submission rarely yields peace. It is time for journalists – and the public – to scrutinise anonymous briefings and question whether they serve truth or stoke fires. The Middle East has had enough lies printed on its pages; it deserves reporting and commentary that reflect the agony of its people and the complexity of its politics.
The writer is a freelance columnist.