By: Abdullah Al-Omira

For nearly three centuries, the Saudi state has never been a “quiet experiment” in history. Rather, it has been a project tested repeatedly—through wars, sieges, collapse, resurgence, unification, and the rise of a modern state confronting security, political, economic, and media challenges—emerging, more often than not, stronger and more cohesive.

This is a reading of awareness:
What were the greatest crises? How did Saudi Arabia overcome them? And why do those who wager on its collapse consistently misread history?

Foundational and Existential Crises (First Saudi State 1744–1818)

The greatest test:
The Ottoman war, carried out through Ottoman-aligned forces in Egypt, culminating in the fall of Diriyah in 1818.

Significance:
The fall did not mark the end of the idea. The “state” was not merely a capital city, but a structure of local legitimacy, alliances, and political memory—allowing its later return.

How did Saudi Arabia overcome the logic of finality?

Rebuilding legitimacy within society, not solely within ruling institutions.

Absorbing the shock and returning in a renewed form rather than repeating the past.

Internal Division and Power Struggles (Second Saudi State 1824–1891)

The greatest test:
Prolonged internal conflicts in Najd, ending with the collapse of the Second Saudi State in 1891, including decisive confrontations such as the Battle of Al-Mulayda.

Significance:
The challenge here was not an external enemy, but internal rivalry consuming the state from within.

How did defeat become preparation for return?

A difficult lesson: states are preserved not by bravery alone, but by managing differences and unifying decision-making authority.

Unification and State-Building Crises (1902–1932 and Beyond)

The greatest internal test:
The Ikhwan rebellion and confrontation between the emerging state and armed factions seeking to impose an alternative course, culminating in the Battle of Sabilla in 1929.

Significance:
A modern state cannot endure if weapons stand above political authority, or if zeal transforms into internal destabilization.

How was this moment overcome?

Establishing a decisive principle: one state, one authority, and no parallel power of arms.

Symbolic Security Crisis and the Great Shock (1979)

The greatest test:
The seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979—an unprecedented symbolic security crisis affecting Islam’s holiest site.

Significance:
The challenge was not merely operational security, but public confidence, national legitimacy, and state authority.

How was the crisis contained without breaking the state?

Treating the incident as an existential threat rather than an isolated event.

Rapid restoration of control while preserving public trust and preventing chaos.

Regional and Alliance Crises (1990–1991)

The greatest test:
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, transforming the Gulf into a direct threat environment and requiring large-scale defensive arrangements.

Significance:
Geopolitical crises disregard intentions; states that fail to read their surroundings are caught unprepared.

How did Saudi Arabia navigate this existential moment?

Building deterrent alliances when necessary.

Turning threat into a restructuring of regional security architecture.

Terrorism and Internal Security Challenges (2003 and Beyond)

The greatest test:
Al-Qaeda attacks inside the Kingdom, initiating a complex internal security confrontation.

Significance:
Terrorism targets not only security, but confidence, economic stability, and international perception.

How was the threat contained?

Establishing proactive and adaptive security systems.

Targeting networks rather than reacting only to incidents.

Energy Security and Infrastructure Attacks (2019 Model)

The greatest test:
Attacks on major oil facilities, testing the Kingdom’s ability to sustain supply and protect critical infrastructure.

Significance:
For an energy state, targeting facilities challenges global standing—not production alone.

How does Saudi Arabia confront signal warfare?

Rapid operational recovery and transparency, as markets price fear before supply loss.

Why Have Predictions of Saudi Arabia’s Collapse Consistently Failed?

Because such predictions focus on moments of crisis rather than what follows them.

Across history, Saudi Arabia’s adversaries interpreted crises as “collapse,” while internally they were treated as moments of strategic repositioning:

Reinforcing legitimacy through institutions.

Building alliances when required.

Maintaining internal cohesion that prevents disorder.

Transforming crises into modernization of tools and governance.

Reading the Discourse of Adversaries

In many crises, the true adversary rarely confronts directly, preferring instead to operate through proxies lacking the courage for open confrontation, relying on media rhetoric driven more by exaggeration and wishful thinking than by realistic assessments of power.

Extremist media voices—often grounded in myth, illusion, or politically motivated fantasies—reveal psychological strain more than genuine strategic positioning.

When emotional noise overwhelms rational analysis, such voices unintentionally expose what their sponsors seek to conceal: anxiety and diminishing influence.

As an old saying suggests:
“The condition of a people is revealed by their most agitated voices.”

Or as the Arab proverb states:
“Learn about a people from their foolish ones.”

Unrestrained rhetoric frequently exposes what official discourse attempts to hide; the loudest voices often reveal truths that formal statements avoid declaring.

In times of crisis, adversaries reveal their weakness not by what they conceal—but by what they are compelled to say.

Iran and the Prolonged Rivalry: Where Does the Current Phase Stand?

When a system becomes a persistent source of instability to its neighbors, its greatest loss is not a battlefield defeat, but the erosion of its ability to function normally within its regional and global environment.

Regardless of differing assessments, one fact remains constant:
states do not collapse because opponents wish for their downfall—but when internal balance erodes and hostility becomes a governing strategy.

Final Advice

Saudi Arabia—anchored by deep Arab and Islamic roots, institutional stability, growing economic strength, advanced defensive capabilities, and leadership guided by long-term strategic vision—has never been a source of instability, but rather a pillar of regional and global balance.

History demonstrates that partnership with the Kingdom opens paths toward development and cooperation, while attempts to weaken or confront it have consistently resulted in losses for those who pursued confrontation.

Politics may differ, and interests may diverge, yet one enduring truth remains:

Nations that build their future through cooperation endure…
while projects founded on hostility and confrontation ultimately fade beyond the course of history.