Saudi Arabia does not rush its response, nor does it forget danger. Powers around it change, hostile projects fall, and the state remains

Written by: Abdullah Al-Omairah

Not every strong state is loved.

Strength brings friends who are looking for a reliable partner, and at the same time attracts adversaries who fear its rise, envious people who are disturbed by its success, and adventurers who misinterpret its calm.

The more secure, influential, fast-growing, and independent in its decision-making a state is, the more circles of interests form around it: some approach it for cooperation, some approach it to observe, and some lie in wait, searching for a vulnerability.

This is not unique to Saudi Arabia; rather, it is a rule of history.

But the Saudi distinction lies in the way the Kingdom has managed its friendships and adversarial relationships: it does not buy a friend by surrendering its sovereignty, does not summon an enemy through displays of power, does not turn every disagreement into a battle, and does not allow its patience to be understood as fear.

Here, history becomes more than a record of the past.

It becomes a key to understanding the Saudi state.

Between Wisdom and Recklessness

Wisdom is not hesitation.

It is the ability to see the end of the road before taking the first step, and to calculate what will happen after the decision, rather than being satisfied with the moment of making it.

As for recklessness, it is for a person to raise his voice before knowing what he wants, to begin a battle before calculating its cost, and to confuse courage with impulsiveness, and strength with noise.

The wise person does not flee confrontation, but chooses its time, place, and tools.

The reckless person may win a moment, but he loses the course; because he consumes his strength in proving it, while wise states preserve their strength to protect their interests.

Between Forbearance and Foolishness

Forbearance is not weakness.

It is possessing the ability to respond, then choosing the response that serves the objective, not the one that satisfies anger.

As for foolishness, it is when emotion rules the decision, and when a state or group becomes captive to a statement, a provocation, or a desire to score a quick position before the public.

The forbearing person is not incapable of punishment, but he knows that some adversaries defeat themselves if left to their impulsiveness.

Therefore, a firmly established state does not enter every battle to which it is invited, does not respond to every voice, and does not grant every adversary a value greater than his size.

Between Patience and Fear

Patience is not acceptance of humiliation, and fear is not the temporary avoidance of confrontation.

The difference between them appears in the outcome.

The fearful person retreats and gives up his interests in order to postpone confrontation.

The patient person, however, remains firm in his interests, gathers the elements of his strength, gives his adversary an opportunity to reconsider, and then moves when movement becomes a necessity.

There is also another difference between patience and vexation.

The vexed person waits while angry and disturbed, consuming himself before reaching his decision. The patient person, however, works while waiting: he builds, plans, watches, and prepares.

This is patience in the concept of states: not stillness, but quiet work beneath the surface of events.

The Patience That Defeats Its Adversary

Arab wisdom says: “He who is patient prevails”; because patience is not passive waiting, but steadfastness that deprives the adversary of attaining his objective. And in the saying, “Be patient with the scheming of the envious, for your patience is his killer,” there is an indication that envy feeds on the disturbance of its target; if the target continues to succeed, the scheming turns back against its perpetrator.

Among the well-known Arab sayings is: “I shall be patient until patience itself is unable to match my patience”; it expresses the strength of will when adversity is transformed from a tool for weakening a person or a state into evidence of their resilience.

And when the enemy believes that Saudi patience has run out, and that prolonged forbearance means the absence of a response, the blow comes at the moment chosen by the Kingdom: harsh upon the aggressor and decisive in protecting its security and interests.

Thus was patience throughout Saudi history: it was not fear of adversaries, but the ability to endure, work, and prepare, until the adversary became incapable of attaining his objective.

History contains many lessons and morals for those who read and understand.

A State That Returned After Destruction

The First Saudi State began in Diriyah in 1139 AH/1727 AD at the hands of Imam Mohammed bin Saud.

At the time, the Arabian Peninsula was not a calm political space; rather, it consisted of dispersed regions, unsafe roads, local conflicts, and foreign influence that treated the region as an arena rather than a state.

As the First Saudi State expanded, it transformed from a local entity into a political power, arousing the concerns of the Ottoman Empire, which sent military campaigns led by the forces of Muhammad Ali Pasha. After a long siege, Diriyah fell in 1233 AH/1818 AD, its capital was destroyed, and Imam Abdullah bin Saud was captured and taken to Istanbul, where he was killed.

The scene, on its surface, appeared to be a complete end.

The capital was destroyed, the leader was absent, the military force was superior, and the adversary believed that he had closed the chapter of the state forever.

But what the invading force did not understand was that the state was not merely the buildings of Diriyah.

It was a political idea, a social legitimacy, and a relationship between the rulers and the people. Therefore, only a few years passed before Imam Turki bin Abdullah reestablished the Second Saudi State in 1240 AH/1824 AD and made Riyadh its capital.

The city was destroyed, but the state returned.

Here, the first of the great lessons appears: armies can destroy palaces and walls, but they cannot eliminate a state that remains present in the consciousness of its society.

The Third Return

The Second Saudi State was exposed to internal and regional conflicts that ended with Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal and his family leaving Riyadh.

Once again, it appeared to the competitors that the Saudi project had become part of the past.

But King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman did not treat the loss of Riyadh as an end, but as a stage on the road to return. In 1319 AH/1902 AD, he recaptured Riyadh with a small number of men, then began a unification journey that continued for nearly three decades.

The unification of the country was not merely a series of battles.

It was a combination of courage and planning, alliance and reconciliation, fighting when necessary, and accommodating adversaries after the conflict had ended. This is the point that some readers of history fail to notice: King Abdulaziz was not only a war leader, but a leader of a state who knew that winning the land was not enough, and that what mattered most was winning the people and building stability.

In 1351 AH/1932 AD, the unification of the country under the name of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was proclaimed, following a journey that began with the recapture of Riyadh and ended with the establishment of a state with sovereignty, unity, and security.

The Saudi project returned for the third time, not because the road was free of enemies, but because it was too profound to end with an adversary’s victory, and too strong to be reduced to a battle.

Enemies from Different Eras

Since the establishment of the modern Kingdom, the forms of hostility have changed.

At one stage, they took the form of regular armies and military campaigns; then they became attempts at political encirclement, ideological threats, terrorist campaigns, missiles and drones, or organized media campaigns targeting trust in the state, its leadership, and its society.

The tools changed, but the mistake made by many adversaries remained the same: misreading Saudi Arabia.

Some saw forbearance as weakness.

Some believed that avoiding escalation was an inability to confront.

Some bet on creating a rift between the leadership and society.

Some believed that a rumor, a crisis, or a passing incident could halt the project of a state.

But the Kingdom did not build its responses on the emotion of the moment. It left room for the adversary to reveal his objectives, gave politics its opportunity, built its alliances, protected the home front, and then moved when the decision was complete.

When it confronted waves of terrorism, it did not limit itself to security pursuits; rather, it besieged the ideology, financing, and organization, introduced counseling and rehabilitation programs, and distinguished between those who had become involved and could be reclaimed, and those who persisted in killing and destruction.

When its security, borders, cities, and facilities were threatened, it exercised its right to defend itself, but it did not make war its project, nor did it allow the battle to halt development within it.

Construction continued, even in a time of danger.

Action Precedes Words

In anxious states, speeches precede achievement.

In the Kingdom, action often precedes words, and then the words come in proportion to the action; when some ignorant people believe patience to be weakness, the result of forbearance arrives decisively, with wisdom that never runs out.

Saudi Arabia did not wait for everyone to become convinced of its ability to transform; it began the transformation. It did not enter into lengthy arguments to prove the possibility of diversifying its economy; it began building new sectors, opened the doors to investment, expanded the presence of women and young people, and established projects that many had not imagined could be implemented with such speed.

With Saudi Vision 2030, the Kingdom was no longer content merely to protect its position; it began to reshape it.

It has implemented more than one thousand reforms since the launch of the Vision, the contribution of non-oil activities has expanded, the sectors of tourism, technology, industry, entertainment, and logistics have grown, and the Kingdom has become a center that attracts capital, minds, and major events.

This kind of transformation multiplies the number of friends, because success creates shared opportunities.

But it also multiplies the number of those who are disturbed; because a state that advances rapidly changes the balance of interests, breaks old images, and proves that the region is not condemned to remain trapped in a cycle of crises.

Not Every Critic Is an Enemy

A confident state does not consider every disagreement an act of hostility, nor every criticism a conspiracy.

Some disagree with a Saudi policy, some compete with the Kingdom economically, and some hold a different reading of events. This is a natural part of international relations and of the life of societies.

An enemy is one who moves from disagreement to targeting, from competition to sabotage, from criticism to incitement, and from defending his interests to attempting to harm the Kingdom’s security, unity, and sovereignty.

Distinguishing between a critic, an adversary, and an enemy lies at the heart of political wisdom.

One who confuses them multiplies his battles without need; a prudent state, however, retains its friends, manages its disagreements, watches its adversaries, and deters its enemies.

Why Are There So Many Friends?

Friends do not gather around Saudi Arabia because of its financial power alone.

Power may attract temporary interests, but reliability is what creates long-term relationships.

The Kingdom’s standing rests on its Arab and Islamic weight, its geographical location, its economy, its role in the stability of energy markets, its political presence, and its ability to fulfill what it pledges.

The international partner also knows that he is dealing with a state with institutions and stable decision-making, not with a political mood that changes every morning.

This is why countries that differ with one another head to Riyadh, competing powers meet there, and parties that do not trust one another seek its mediation. A mediator is not chosen because he has the loudest voice, but because he is the most trusted and the most capable of preserving balance.

Saudi strength is not founded on having many enemies, but on its ability to widen the circle of friends, reduce areas of hostility, and prevent adversarial relations from turning into a threat.

Why Do Adversaries Fail?

It is not true that everyone who has disagreed with the Kingdom has fallen, nor that history moves according to an automatic rule that punishes enemies.

But what is established is that the projects built upon bringing down the Saudi state, dismantling it, or subjugating its decision have failed.

They failed because they dealt with the Kingdom as a geographical space that could be pressured, and did not realize that it is a state supported by a cohesive society and an extended historical memory.

They failed because they rushed the results, while Saudi Arabia managed confrontations according to the time of the state, not the time of the statement.

They failed because they spent their strength on destruction, while the Kingdom continued to invest its strength in construction.

An adversary may possess a missile, but he does not possess a project.

He may possess a platform, but he does not possess the trust of the people.

He may be able to cause temporary harm, but he cannot stop a state that knows where it is going.

The State That Learns

Survival alone is not proof of success.

Many states may survive, but remain in place.

The Saudi experience, however, reveals a rare capacity to return, learn, and develop. The state returned after its first fall, returned after its second fall, and then, in its third era, built a state whose strength does not rely on memory alone, but on institutions, the economy, education, technology, defense capabilities, and international relations.

The Kingdom does not draw its confidence from never having been exposed to danger.

Rather, it draws it from having been exposed to danger repeatedly, recognized it, learned from it, and emerged stronger.

This is the message that the friend should read before the enemy:

Saudi Arabia respects friendship and does not underestimate hostility.

It inclines toward peace, but does not compromise its security.

It is patient, but it does not lose sight.

It exercises forbearance, but it is not incapable.

It deliberates, but when it decides, it moves forward.

Read History

Whoever believed that the destruction of Diriyah ended the state was wrong.

Whoever believed that the departure of Al Saud from Riyadh ended their project was wrong.

Whoever believed that terrorism would break society was wrong.

Whoever imagined that threats would halt development was wrong.

And whoever reads Saudi calm today as weakness repeats the same mistake.

This does not mean that the Kingdom does not face challenges, nor that it is immune to mistakes or crises. Living states are continually tested, and the greater their ambitions become, the greater their responsibilities and risks.

But Saudi history presents a truth that is difficult to ignore:

Strength does not lie in never falling, but in knowing how to rise, why to rise, and where to go after rising.

Empires succeeded one another, alliances changed, and leaders and projects that once raised slogans calling for the elimination of the Saudi state disappeared.

The Kingdom remained.

It did not remain because it was the loudest, but because it had the greatest endurance, the deepest roots, and the greatest capacity to transform adversity into experience, danger into vigilance, and time into an ally.

Whoever wants to know the future of Saudi Arabia should not be satisfied with listening to what is said about it today.

Read history.

Saudi Arabia moves forward, and whoever is hostile to it falls.

This is not a slogan from an age of the faint-hearted, nor a phrase fashioned by passing enthusiasm; rather, it is a truth lived by Saudi men and women, witnessed by every person who loves the Kingdom, and known by everyone who reads history well.

The Kingdom moves forward, and its history remains a witness: adversarial relationships succeed one another, aggressors fall, and Saudi Arabia remains standing tall.