I base my argument on the proposition that the current turmoil in Iran worries Saudi Arabia more than any other regional power, because the political fate of both regimes is deeply intertwined.

Why?

By applying the theory of binary opposition, one can see that the theocratic rivalry that emerged after the 1979 Iranian Revolution has, paradoxically, sustained both regimes in political and existential terms. If one were to collapse, the other would lose its principal justification for survival. They must therefore either stand together, fall together, or transform together by abandoning ideological theocracy and adopting modern political and social state structures.

This dynamic is rooted in the events of 1979.

Iran’s revolution overthrew a US-backed Shah, while Saudi Arabia, in the same year, confronted a violent Islamist seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Both regimes responded by entrenching religious legitimacy and projecting their fears outward. Iran cast itself as the defender of Shiʿa Islam against corrupt, Western-aligned monarchies, while Saudi Arabia claimed the role of guardian of Sunni orthodoxy against revolutionary Shiʿism.

This produced a self-reinforcing cycle: every Iranian advance justified Saudi religious mobilisation, and every Saudi expansion of Wahhabi influence validated Iran’s narrative of sectarian siege. Geopolitical rivalry was transformed into theological warfare, exported across the Middle East and beyond, including to Pakistan.

Domestically, this rivalry enabled repression, as reformers, dissidents, and minorities could be branded agents of the enemy. Fear of the other side suppressed demands for democracy, pluralism, and accountability. In this way, both regimes thrived not despite their rivalry, but because of it.

One might ask: if Saudi Arabia is........

© The Friday Times