Saudi Arabia reportedly drafts Middle East version of the "Non-Aggression Pact," promoting reconciliation between Gulf countries and Iran, with "excluding" Israel potentially becoming the biggest obstacle

After months of warfare in the Middle East and successive missile and drone attacks in Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia is pushing forward with a bold plan that could reshape the regional security landscape.

According to UK media reports on Thursday the 14th, sources familiar with the matter say Saudi Arabia is discussing a “Middle East Non-Aggression Treaty” concept with multiple Arab countries and regional partners, aiming to promote a long-term security mechanism between Gulf and neighboring countries and Iran, establishing “red lines” and crisis communication channels for future regional conflicts to prevent the region from sliding back into full-scale war.

The report states that this concept draws potential reference from the European “Helsinki Process” of the 1970s during the Cold War era. Several European governments and EU institutions have expressed support for this initiative, believing it is the best way to prevent future conflicts while providing security guarantees to Tehran.

However, for Saudi’s vision to be realized, significant obstacles remain. An Arab diplomat pointed out that the effectiveness of a non-aggression treaty largely depends on the composition of the participating parties. The diplomat emphasized: “In the current political climate, it’s impossible to get Iran and Israel to join at the same time… Without Israel, it might be counterproductive, because after Iran, Israel is seen as the biggest source of conflict. But Iran will not disappear, which is precisely why Saudi is pushing this idea.”

Behind the diplomatic initiative promoted by Saudi Arabia is a deep concern among Gulf states over the loss of order in the region following Iran’s war. Currently, Pakistan is leading efforts to mediate between the US and Iran, Qatar and Turkey are proposed to join the Saudi-led defense pact, and a regional strategic cooperation framework centered on Saudi, Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt is taking shape. This geopolitical reshuffle will have profound impacts on energy security, regional stability expectations, and asset pricing in the Middle East.

How does Saudi plan to advance the “Non-Aggression Treaty”?

According to the aforementioned UK media report this Thursday, the framework envisioned by Saudi is not just a simple ceasefire agreement but more akin to a “regional security community.”

Sources say the Saudi government hopes to promote principles-based agreements among Gulf Arab states, Iran, and some Middle Eastern countries, including non-aggression, mutual support against cross-border proxy attacks, and safeguarding energy and shipping security.

The report highlights that Saudi is especially focused on several core objectives:

• Prevent Iran and its proxy forces from attacking Gulf energy facilities again;
• Reduce the risk of the Strait of Hormuz being blockaded;
• Establish long-term crisis communication channels;
• Avoid Gulf countries being dragged into US-Iran or Israel-Iran wars again;
• Provide a stable environment for regional economic recovery and energy exports.

More notably, Saudi hopes this framework can be as independent as possible from reliance on US security guarantees. The report states that Saudi, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan have recently been discussing broader defense cooperation mechanisms; Pakistan even proposed expanding the previously signed joint defense agreement with Saudi to include Qatar and Turkey.

To some extent, Saudi is trying to promote a “post-American era” regional security order.

Why is Saudi suddenly seeking reconciliation?

Looking only at recent months, this proposal might even seem somewhat unusual.

Because recent reports have revealed that both Saudi Arabia and the UAE secretly launched military strikes against Iran.

A report on Monday disclosed that the Saudi Air Force conducted a secret airstrike inside Iran at the end of March, in response to previous attacks by Iran on Saudi oil and gas facilities and civilian targets. There are also reports that the UAE participated in covert operations targeting Iranian targets.

But it is precisely because of this round of conflict that Gulf countries have become more aware: even with advanced air defense systems and US support, they still find it difficult to truly stay out of the fire.

Especially the Strait of Hormuz crisis has had a huge impact on Gulf states.

US media pointed out that during the war, the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz severely impacted Gulf countries’ economic transformation plans, with non-oil sectors like tourism, technology, real estate, and finance suffering significant setbacks.

For Saudi Arabia, which is pushing forward with the “Vision 2030,” prolonged regional war means: foreign investment is blocked; energy exports face risks; large infrastructure and tourism projects are under pressure; and the image of Gulf “safe assets” is damaged.

Therefore, Riyadh’s current approach increasingly resembles a “two-pronged strategy”: one side uses limited military deterrence to signal to Iran that it has the capacity to retaliate; the other side tries to re-lock conflicts through diplomatic mechanisms.

The biggest challenge: what about Israel?

However, for Saudi’s Middle East “Non-Aggression Treaty” to truly take hold, there are also major obstacles. One of the most thorny issues is Israel.

Thursday’s report pointed out that the current framework under discussion does not include Israel. This means it is more like a “Gulf-Iran” security arrangement rather than a comprehensive peace mechanism covering the entire Middle East.

The problem is that Israel is now deeply embedded in the Gulf security architecture.

In recent years, under the Abraham Accords, security cooperation between the UAE and Israel has rapidly deepened; Iran increasingly views some Gulf countries as part of the Israeli camp.

This puts Saudi in a very complex balancing act: excluding Israel entirely might mean the agreement cannot truly address core regional security conflicts; but including Israel makes it difficult for Iran to accept.

Adding to the complication, Gulf countries themselves are not unified.

The report states that the UAE’s stance on Iran is notably more hardline than Saudi’s, and it maintains closer coordination with Israel, so whether it is willing to join this framework remains uncertain.

Furthermore, the US factor remains influential.

Although Saudi aims to reduce reliance on the US security system, the reality is that the US remains the most important military power in the Gulf. The Trump administration’s previous push for military pressure on Iran also created contradictions between “continuing dependence on the US” and “avoiding being drawn into a major war.”

Is the Middle East entering a “new equilibrium”?

From a broader perspective, Saudi’s push for the “Non-Aggression Treaty” actually reflects a new strategic shift emerging across the Middle East.

Over the past decade, the main logic in the Middle East has been “bloc confrontation.”

But after this round of Iran-related conflicts, more regional countries are beginning to realize that a full-scale conflict has almost no winners.

Iran, though severely weakened, has not been completely crushed; Gulf countries, despite their funds and advanced weapons, have exposed infrastructure vulnerabilities; the US, due to war costs and energy shocks, faces enormous pressure.

Therefore, Saudi’s current push can be seen as a form of “limited coexistence”: not necessarily mutual trust, but at least avoiding another out-of-control war.

This may also indicate that the Middle East is gradually shifting from the previous years’ “full confrontation” toward a new fragile equilibrium.

Risk warning and disclaimer

        Markets are risky; investments should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not consider individual users’ specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Invest at your own risk.