Saudi Public Split Over Iran War, Research Reveals

The Saudi government is reportedly mired in a complex political dilemma over how best to respond to the widening war between the United States and Iran. Amid growing security threats in the Gulf region, public opinion within Saudi Arabia is now surprisingly split over the option of direct military involvement. Citing a rare independent opinion poll conducted inside the authoritarian monarchy, two leading political scientists—Robert Kubinec from the University of South Carolina and Alexis Montambault-Trudelle from Université Laval—have tracked the dynamics of Saudi public opinion since the armed conflict erupted. “Saudi society is deeply divided over military action against Iran—a split that presents a difficult calculus for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, and his advisers,” they wrote. An absolute majority, roughly three-quarters of respondents, actually fully support strengthening strategic ties with the United States. This is considered unique given the poll was conducted after the US military unilaterally bombed Iran on 28 February. Iranian aggression targeting allied territory further strengthened the desire of locals to shelter under the Pentagon’s security umbrella. However, the situation reverses drastically when citizens are asked about launching direct military strikes at the heart of the opponent’s defences. The results show 49 per cent of respondents agree with the Saudi military striking Iranian missile launch sites, whilst 51 per cent firmly reject the option of open war. The research reveals that support for aggressive military action is highest among the middle-aged group at 61 per cent, whereas support dwindles among the younger generation to just 45 per cent. A stark contrast also exists based on gender, with 54 per cent of Saudi men strongly supporting military strikes against Iran, while women exhibit a much more restrained stance at only 43 per cent support. “Views on the two questions are mutually reinforcing; meaning respondents who view the US alliance positively are more likely to support strikes on Iran, and vice versa,” the researchers stated. Nevertheless, the uncertainty of the war has not entirely polarised Saudi society into extreme war-hawk or peaceful-dove camps. Only 15 per cent of respondents strongly support military action and only 16 per cent radically oppose it. The majority are positioned in the middle, reflecting deep ambivalence rather than hardened ideological conviction regarding the armed conflict. The poll dynamics help the international community read the direction of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s covert manoeuvres. In May, Saudi air force services reportedly launched several secret airstrikes over Iranian territory, marking a major shift from their traditional defence doctrine. Riyadh was forced to act independently after Washington’s unilateral decision to strike Iran without consultation left Saudi Arabia bearing the brunt of retaliatory Iranian missile strikes on its oil facilities. Media reports separately claim Prince Mohammed personally urged US President Donald Trump to maintain full military pressure on Tehran, calling it a historic opportunity. The researchers concluded that Saudi leaders are operating under competing incentives: maintaining credible deterrence from the US alliance, signalling resolve toward Tehran, whilst simultaneously limiting the domestic costs of open war. They contend that even authoritarian regimes remain sensitive to domestic political constraints and are loath to bear the political costs of defying broad public preferences. Thus, Saudi Arabia’s official stance of feigning public restraint on one hand, while providing covert operational support to weaken Iran on the other, is judged a calculated strategy to satisfy foreign security objectives without triggering domestic protest.