The modernization and reform of Saudi Arabia will depend on understanding its true friends and adversaries in the region.

Saudi Arabia stands at a decisive moment in its modern history. Its internal transformation under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman coincides with a broader regional realignment, one increasingly defined by the tension between state-centered order and chronic instability. For Washington and its partners, few actors will shape the outcome of this transition more decisively.

As a leading energy producer, a central security actor, and the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites, Saudi Arabia’s strategic posture carries consequences far beyond the Gulf. For hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide, its choices shape expectations about whether faith, modernization, and peace can coexist. That reality gives Saudi decision-making a civilizational dimension and places a premium on strategic clarity.

The crown prince’s signature modernization project, Vision 2030, represents a structural reorientation of Saudi governance and society. By prioritizing economic diversification, institutional reform, and youth empowerment, the kingdom has signaled a long-term commitment to stability rather than ideological leadership.

Yet reform does not occur in a vacuum. The Middle East remains shaped by non-state actors, transnational ideological movements, and revisionist regimes that exploit ambiguity. Where clarity weakens, militias embed themselves within political systems, narratives displace institutions, and proxy warfare becomes normalized. In such environments, modernization and ambiguity rarely coexist for long.

Movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood have shown a capacity for rhetorical adaptation while remaining structurally resistant to pluralism, institutional sovereignty, and economic openness. Prosperity struggles to take root in environments where ideology supersedes the authority of the state.

It was in this context that President Donald Trump emphasized strategic clarity toward Islamist movements. The approach was driven by coherence: a recognition that reform, growth, and peace cannot endure in environments shaped by ideological regression.

Yemen: The Cost of Strategic Illusions

Yemen illustrates this principle with particular clarity. The conflict is often reduced to a confrontation between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis. In reality, Yemen has been destabilized by two converging regressive forces.

The first is the Houthi movement, an extension of Iran’s proxy strategy. Armed, trained, and supported by Tehran, the Houthis have transformed Yemen into a platform for missile attacks, drone warfare, and maritime threats.

The second consists of Muslim Brotherhood-aligned and regressive Islamist networks embedded within elements of Yemen’s internationally recognized political structures. These actors lack a coherent vision for a modern, sovereign Yemeni state. Their influence operates through institutional infiltration rather than national consolidation.

Calls for unity are understandable. Yet unity that merges Iranian-backed militias with ideologically driven Islamist factions would not stabilize Yemen—it would institutionalize dysfunction. Hybrid arrangements of this kind in Lebanon and Iraq have demonstrated how such systems empower non-state actors while guaranteeing recurring crises.

Iran, Turkey, and the Limits of Ambiguity

Iran remains the principal driver of regional destabilization. Its reliance on proxy warfare has hollowed out state institutions across the region while failing to deliver prosperity at home. Today, the Islamic Republic faces mounting internal pressure from a young population increasingly disconnected from ideological governance.

Turkey presents a different, though related, challenge. Despite its status as a NATO ally, Ankara’s regional posture has been marked by inconsistency—supporting Islamist movements, coordinating tactically with Iran and Russia, and adopting confrontational positions that complicate collective security efforts. Strategic ambiguity has weakened trust and constrained Turkey’s ability to function as a stabilizing force.

The pattern is consistent: ambiguity does not moderate conflict; it creates space for actors whose influence depends on disorder.

Israel as a Regional Counter-Terrorism Partner

One reality merits sober acknowledgment. Israel has borne a disproportionate share of the operational burden in confronting terrorist organizations that threaten not only its own security but also regional stability more broadly. Through sustained military and intelligence operations against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and related networks, Israel has disrupted the ecosystem of Iranian proxies. These efforts have degraded terrorist capabilities, constrained financing, and reinforced deterrence—producing security dividends that extend beyond Israel’s borders.

What matters is the functional role Israel performs: absorbing operational risk in confronting actors that many regional states are unable—or unwilling—to confront directly. Where such a role exists, political isolation becomes strategically inconsistent. The Abraham Accords were designed to address this gap by aligning diplomatic frameworks with operational realities.

The Abraham Accords’ Strategic Breakthrough

Any serious assessment of the Abraham Accords must acknowledge the role played by Jared Kushner in translating long-standing strategic convergence into a viable diplomatic framework. 

By engaging regional leaders directly, endorsing Saudi Arabia’s reform trajectory under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and anchoring diplomacy in economic integration and security cooperation, Kushner helped unlock what many had considered unattainable. The Abraham Accords were not merely a diplomatic event; they represented a structural correction in regional thinking. Strategic consistency now requires building upon this framework rather than hesitating at its threshold.

The region’s younger generations are increasingly explicit in their expectations. From Iran to Turkey to parts of the Arab world, youth are demanding opportunity, dignity, and stability—not ideological confrontation. States that fail to respond to these aspirations face gradual erosion from within.

Saudi Arabia has chosen reform. Protecting that choice requires clarity, coherence, and consistency in both domestic and external policy. In a region long exhausted by ambiguity, clarity is not rigidity—it is leadership. And leadership, grounded in consistency, remains the strongest foundation for peace.

About the Author: Ahmed Charai

​​Ahmed Charai is the publisher of The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune and serves on the boards of directors of the Atlantic Council, the International Crisis Group, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Center for the National Interest.

Image: Fotofield / Shutterstock.com.

The post Saudi Arabia, Strategic Clarity, and the Architecture of Middle East Stability appeared first on The National Interest.