Since the outset of the war, the strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been grounded in actively responding to aggression by targeting the bases and interests of the aggressors across the region. This approach has not remained confined to the military domain; rather, in proportion to the adversary’s actions, it has gradually extended into industrial and infrastructural spheres. The policy has constituted a calculated response to hostile measures and an effort to prevent the expansion of threats.

Within this framework, Iran’s message is clear: any participation in aggression will carry a cost. At the same time, the complexity of the current situation—particularly within the region’s multi-layered environment—demands heightened caution from all parties and a deep understanding of what is described as the deceptive design of the United States and the Zionist regime to undermine the capacities of the Islamic world and to sow discord among Muslims. The manner in which the American–Zionist adversary is prosecuting the war has been crafted in such a way that any action could trigger a chain of unpredictable reactions.

Paradox of War: Gains for Tel Aviv, Losses for the Region

The undeniable reality is that the continuation of war and the destruction of military, industrial, and oil infrastructure in Iran and Arab countries of the region ultimately serve the interests of the Zionist regime more than any other party. This dynamic has created a strategic paradox: actors who ostensibly stand on opposing sides are, in practice, engaged in mutual attrition to the benefit of a third party.

Numerous reports indicate that there are gaps between the public and behind-the-scenes positions of some regional countries regarding the outbreak and continuation of the war. What matters, however, are the tangible consequences of this situation: diminished economic capacity, instability in energy markets, and the weakening of convergence within the Islamic world.

Under such conditions, any escalation of tensions between Tehran and Riyadh would, in effect, further level the playing field for extra-regional actors and reduce the prospects for managing the crisis.

Strategic Differentiation: Riyadh and Abu Dhabi

In analyzing recent developments, distinguishing between the roles of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is essential. Saudi Arabia, by virtue of its leadership role in the Persian Gulf and its decisive influence on global oil markets, is a key actor in regional equations. By contrast, the UAE, owing to its deep ties with the Zionist regime and its central role in regional trade, has pursued a different trajectory.

The UAE’s dual-track behavior—even during its coalition with Riyadh in the Yemen war—due to its ambitious dimensions, effectively placed the two countries at odds. In the recent conflict as well, by adopting relatively explicit positions, the UAE has in practice aligned itself with the camp supporting the aggressors. Nevertheless, in the propaganda discourse of the United States and the Zionist regime, Abu Dhabi’s approach receives comparatively little attention.

In contrast, Donald Trump’s repeated emphasis on Saudi Arabia’s support—particularly that of Mohammed bin Salman—for the US and Zionist regime’s aggression against Iran points to a deliberate design. This pattern reflects a clear attempt to project a direct confrontation between two major powers of the Islamic world. Inciting public opinion in Iran against Saudi Arabia could fuel rising tensions, deepen divisions, and ultimately push Riyadh toward anti-Iran coalitions—a trajectory that would facilitate initiatives such as the “Abraham Plan.”

Necessity of Intelligent Conflict Management

Despite the use of Saudi territory and airspace by the United States in certain actions against Iran, a lack of response from Tehran cannot be considered a sustainable option. Nevertheless, Iran has thus far sought to design and implement its responses to US positions and interests in Saudi Arabia within a calculated framework grounded in tension management.

To navigate the current situation at minimal cost, Iran has placed several strategies on its agenda:

First, the differentiation of response levels—meaning that reactions to hostile actions are calibrated in a way that prevents escalation into direct confrontation with Saudi Arabia. Focusing on the principal sources of threat can help prevent misdirection on the battlefield.

Second, efforts to preserve non-public channels of communication with the aim of managing misunderstandings and preventing further escalation of the crisis.

Third, restraint in delivering decisive blows to Saudi Arabia’s vital infrastructure in the oil, gas, petrochemical, and electricity sectors.

Fourth, distinguishing the UAE from Saudi Arabia in strategic calculations—adopting different approaches toward these two actors in a manner that can help prevent the deepening of existing rifts.

Managing this contestation does not imply passivity; rather, it signifies deliberate and intelligent engagement within a complex field. Tehran and Riyadh, while in opposition in certain domains, share a fundamental reality: any direct confrontation would impose costs that far exceed their short-term capacities.