It appears Saudi Arabia has had enough of Trump’s war.
A non-aggression pact between #Iran and Saudi Arabia?
🔹The Financial Times report on Saudi Arabia’s proposal for a regional “non-aggression pact” between Iran and neighboring states is not merely a temporary diplomatic initiative. Rather, it signals Riyadh’s attempt to…
— Hamidreza Azizi (@HamidRezaAz) May 14, 2026
Non-Aggression Pact Details
The Financial Times report on Saudi Arabia’s proposal for a regional “non-aggression pact” between Iran and neighboring states is not merely a temporary diplomatic initiative. Rather, it signals Riyadh’s attempt to redefine the Middle East’s security architecture in the aftermath of the U.S./Israeli war on Iran.
The significance of this idea lies less in the pact itself – after all, this is not the first time such an idea is being discussed – than in the strategic logic behind it. Saudi Arabia appears to have concluded that the perpetual cycle of deterrence, limited strikes, and proxy warfare can no longer be managed solely through reliance on the American security umbrella.
The Saudis’ reference to the 1970s “Helsinki process” is also far from accidental. That model was designed precisely to manage competition between hostile blocs, not to fully resolve ideological and geopolitical disputes. In other words, the objective is not to eliminate tensions, but to contain them.
In effect, Riyadh now seems to be moving toward a form of implicit acceptance of a new regional balance of power, in which Iran, despite the heavy costs of the recent war, remains an indispensable actor in the region’s security equations.
This shift also reflects a broader change in the Saudi conception of “stability.” For years, many Arab states defined regional security in terms of containing or weakening Iran’s regional influence. Now, however, the primary priority appears to be preventing Iran-Israel conflict from escalating into a permanent regional war.
From this perspective, the proposal for a non-aggression pact should be understood as part of the broader trend toward the “regionalization” of Persian Gulf security. This process began with the China-mediated Iran-Saudi rapprochement in 2023 and may now enter a more complex phase, i.e., the establishment of rules of conduct for crisis management.
At the same time, comparisons between the Middle East and Cold War-era Europe have serious limitations. Unlike Europe, the region lacks durable institutional structures, clear deterrence lines, and even a minimal consensus over the foundations of a regional security order. Moreover, the role of non-state actors and multilayered conflicts makes the equation far more complex.
More importantly, any such initiative would remain inherently fragile without some degree of mutual understanding between Iran and Israel regarding the acceptable limits of escalation. Any new direct confrontation could easily destroy the entire process of regional de-escalation.
At the same time, the proposal itself demonstrates that the Arab states of the Persian Gulf are increasingly concerned about the spillover of Iran-Israel rivalry into their energy infrastructure, trade corridors, and economic development projects. This concern has now become a major driver of regional policy.
For this reason, even if the idea of a “non-aggression pact” never materializes into a formal agreement, the very fact that it has been proposed carries an important message, that a significant part of the Arab world is no longer seeking to exclude Iran from the region’s security equations, but rather to make patterns of interaction with Tehran more predictable.
Preliminary Stage
The Financial Times article is behind a paywall but there are other reports. NDTV reports Saudi Seeks To Soothe Iran Ties With Non-Aggression Pact, Eyes 1970s Helsinki Mode
Saudi Arabia is considering exploring a regional non-aggression pact involving Iran and other Middle Eastern nations as policymakers assess the geopolitical consequences of the ongoing US-Iran conflict, according to a report by Financial Times.
The Saudi officials are reported to have discussed the proposal with Western allies and regional partners, aim of which is to prevent a broader security breakdown in the Gulf once the current phase of tensions between Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran subsides.
Diplomats cited in the report said Riyadh is examining whether a framework similar to the 1970s Helsinki Model in Europe could help stabilise the region.
The Helsinki model emerged during the Cold War when rival blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to a set of principles under the 1975 Helsinki Accords.
Saudi Arabia is considering exploring a regional non-aggression pact involving Iran and other Middle Eastern nations as policymakers assess the geopolitical consequences of the ongoing US-Iran conflict, according to a report by Financial Times.
The Saudi officials are reported to have discussed the proposal with Western allies and regional partners, aim of which is to prevent a broader security breakdown in the Gulf once the current phase of tensions between Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran subsides.
Diplomats cited in the report said Riyadh is examining whether a framework similar to the 1970s Helsinki Model in Europe could help stabilise the region.
The Helsinki model emerged during the Cold War when rival blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to a set of principles under the 1975 Helsinki Accords.
Saudi Arabia, which restored diplomatic ties with Iran in 2023 after years of hostility, is increasingly positioning itself as a stabilising force focused on economic diversification and regional investment security.
Diplomats stressed that the non-aggression proposal remains at a preliminary stage, with multiple ideas still under discussion.
Mideast Eye reports Saudi Arabia floats non-aggression pact with Iran and regional states
An Arab diplomat told The Financial Times that a similar agreement for the Middle East would be welcomed “by most Arab and Muslim states, as well as by Iran”. The latter has called on Gulf states to close US military bases in the region.
Israel would likely oppose any formal agreement that seeks to reduce tensions between Arab states and Iran. It’s also unclear whether the US would support the move.
It’s unclear how the agreement would handle sensitive issues like the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran wants to exert its influence over the waterway and has imposed its own system for navigating the crucial strait, including a toll.
A divided Gulf, stalled peace talks
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states lobbied the US against attacking Iran, in part because they believed the war would leave Iran battered but emboldened, with the Islamic Republic still in power.
A CIA report suggests that is what has played out. The intelligence document said Iran retains most of its pre-war arsenal of ballistic missiles, and the government shows no sign of collapsing.
The Gulf has been divided over how to respond to the war. Iran pummelled the Gulf states with thousands of drones and missiles despite their efforts to prevent a conflict. The Trump administration lobbied Gulf states to join the war on Iran.
The UAE and Saudi Arabia have also staked out different positions on Israel.
Whereas voices close to the Saudi Arabian royal family have criticised Israel, the UAE has moved closer to it.
Mideast Power Shift
Saudi Arabia is trying to limit attacks on its country should Netanyahu persuade Trump to renew fighting.
The second key takeaway is that countries are genuinely wondering to what extent the US can protect them.
Support for this war, which nobody but Israel and US lunatics wanted in the first place has collapsed.
55% of Americans oppose the war with Iran
30% support itFurther details
Dem: 4% support, 90% oppose
Ind: 19% support, 60% oppose
Rep: 69% support, 18% opposeSource: Economist/YouGov Poll May 9-11, 2026 pic.twitter.com/ftBzbxm8eP
— Preston Stewart (@prestonstew_) May 14, 2026
A War Powers Resolution Act missed passage today in the House by one vote.
The US House of Representatives failed to pass the War Powers resolution aimed at limiting US President Trump's military action against Iran.
Follow Press TV on Telegram: https://t.co/h0eMpifVIe pic.twitter.com/u5kHCraRtu
— PressTV Extra (@PresstvExtra) May 14, 2026
The Name Game
https://t.co/j2CiSyn8GZ
The Pentagon is reported to be considering renaming its war on Iran “Operation Sledgehammer.” In reality, it’s a continuation of the word game the administration is playing to avoid the 60-day limit in the War Powers Act. By changing the name, it becomes a… pic.twitter.com/kPAxwvrUZ6— Helga Zepp-LaRouche (@ZeppLaRouche) May 14, 2026
Sorry, no musical tribute because I hate that d*mn song. But I do have a news flash below.
The only Federal entity that can declare war is the Legislative Branch. It's disingenuous that the War Power's Act, that limits Executive Powers to "wage wars" is used in the opposite/Unconstitutional sense: as an unbridled Executive Power to engage U.S. Military in Forever Wars. https://t.co/WAoZzRihEx pic.twitter.com/1CdJhid4Ui
— At the beginning before the end! (@pdag25) May 13, 2026
And That’s the Way It Is
Senate narrowly backs Trump's war on Iran, 50-49. They block War Powers Act, which would halt president's trashing of Constitution.#politics #newshttps://t.co/tdntAPJZgf
— PeoplesWorld (@PeoplesWorld) May 14, 2026
Yes, there actually was a time when news anchors were respected, whether they deserved it or not.
Article posted with permission from Mish Shedlock
