Why Saudi Arabia Fears the Fall of Iran’s Supreme Leader More Than War Itself
Why Saudi Arabia Fears the Fall of Iran’s Supreme Leader More Than War Itself
Introduction
On Tuesday, January 27, 2026, a phone rang inside the office of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). On the other end of the line was Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, delivering a stark warning:
Do not allow the United States to attack Iran.
If Washington proceeds, Pezeshkian warned, regional stability will collapse.
At the same moment, U.S. military forces were already positioning themselves around Iran, warming up what many feared could become a direct confrontation. This single phone call exposed a profound geopolitical paradox—Saudi Arabia, long considered Iran’s rival, was now working urgently to prevent an American strike against Tehran.
Why would Riyadh protect its adversary? The answer lies in a deeper fear of what could emerge from Iran’s collapse.
Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Paradox
For decades, Saudi Arabia and Iran have stood on opposite sides of Middle Eastern politics. Yet within hours, Riyadh’s posture shifted dramatically—from rivalry to crisis management.
Behind palace walls, Saudi leaders were confronting a difficult calculation:
It may be safer to deal with a familiar enemy—Iran’s clerical regime—than to face the unknown consequences of forcibly removing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Saudi Arabia fears that if the clerics lose their grip on power through violence, Iran could descend into chaos—or worse, fall under the control of a far more aggressive force.
The Dangerous Alternative: An IRGC Takeover
Many in the West assume that the fall of Iran’s supreme leader would pave the way toward democracy. However, research suggests otherwise.
Political analyst Maryam Abdi, writing for the Middle East Institute, and scholar Cameron Kiani, in his study IRGC: History and Role in Iranian Statecraft, arrive at the same conclusion:
The collapse of the clerical regime would likely empower the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), not democratic reformers.
Why the IRGC Matters
Iran’s power structure rests on two pillars:
The religious clerical establishment
The IRGC
While the clerical class is fragmented and lacks a unified command structure, the IRGC has evolved into a highly cohesive and powerful institution.
Today, the IRGC controls:
Advanced military capabilities
Vast economic networks
Media outlets
Intelligence services
Its own detention and prison infrastructure
Under Western sanctions, the IRGC has thrived financially, becoming Iran’s largest economic cartel. This cohesion gives it a decisive advantage if power vacuums emerge.
Why Saudi Arabia Fears an IRGC-Led Iran
Saudi Arabia views an IRGC-dominated Iran as more dangerous than the current clerical leadership.
Despite ideological differences, Iran’s religious leaders still impose ideological restraints on military escalation. Their authority functions as a brake on unlimited warfare.
An IRGC-led state, however, could abandon religious restraint in favor of aggressive Persian nationalism, using external conflict to unify the population. For Riyadh, this scenario represents a nightmare.
Even worse, Saudi officials fear Iran could fracture like Iraq or Libya, creating power vacuums that unleash proxy militias without centralized control—potentially igniting conflicts along Saudi borders.
In short, Saudi Arabia prefers a stable adversary over an anarchic neighbor.
Economic Stakes: Vision 2030 Under Threat
Beyond security, war threatens Saudi Arabia’s economic future.
A major regional conflict would:
Undermine investor confidence
Stall foreign capital inflows
Jeopardize Vision 2030, Crown Prince MBS’s flagship modernization program
Without regional stability, mega-projects and long-term investments lose their appeal. War would not only burn battlefields—it would burn business prospects.
Saudi Arabia’s Double Strategy
Faced with these risks, Riyadh has adopted a dual-track approach:
1. Pressuring Washington
Saudi Arabia, along with Oman, Egypt, and Qatar, has urged Donald Trump to exercise restraint. These countries fear overwhelming retaliation if Iran strikes back—especially after Iran’s June 2025 attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
2. Engaging Tehran
At the same time, Saudi Arabia has quietly pursued dialogue with Iran to ensure that no escalation originates from Arab airspace or territory.
Divisions Inside the United States and Israel
Even within Washington, voices of caution have emerged.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reportedly advised Trump to give economic sanctions more time rather than rushing into military action.
Israel, too, requested delays—not out of concern for regional stability, but because it lacks sufficient interceptor stockpiles to sustain prolonged retaliation against Iran.
Removing One Man Won’t Fix Iran
Military power can remove a leader. But Iran’s political system is not built around a single individual.
As analysts warn, removing Ayatollah Khamenei without a clear transition plan would not resolve tensions—it could open the gates to a far more destructive conflict across the Middle East.
And that is Saudi Arabia’s greatest fear.
Conclusion: Stability Over Victory
For Riyadh, geopolitics is not about ideological victories—it is about predictability.
A weakened but stable Iran is preferable to a collapsed state ruled by unchecked military power. In the Middle East, uncertainty itself can be the deadliest weapon.
The question now remains:
Can Saudi Arabia and its neighbors defuse the fuse of a potential Trump-triggered conflict?
The future of the region may depend on the answer.
Share on Facebook