السياسة خارج المساحات الرمادية

The problem is not in the crises of the region per se, but in the methodology that has been employed for years..

The methodology relies on delegating conflict, distributing decision-making, and hiding responsibility behind a network of agents who act when called upon and disappear when questioned about the results.

The agent, in politics, is not a partner in decision-making..

They are an execution tool without full sovereign commitment, operating in the gray area between state and non-state, benefiting from ambiguity more than from clarity.

Here lies the structural flaw:

A decision without a clear signature,

An action without a direct responsibility,

And crises managed from behind, while their costs are left in the forefront for other countries.

In this model, the goal is not to end the conflict, but to manage it..

And the aim is not stability, but to keep the scene open to possibilities of controlled chaos..

The longer the crisis lasts, the higher the value of the agent, and the greater the maneuvering space from the shadows.

This path may seem clever in short-term calculations..

It provides speed of movement, a margin for denial, and the ability to change roles without bearing political or legal consequences..

But at its core, it is a fragile path that cannot withstand changes in the balance of power and does not produce sustainable stability.

The region has experienced the logic of agency enough..

And witnessed how conflicts turn into permanent files without a prospect for resolution..

And how wars are conducted without a decision to end them..

And how agreements are signed that no one has the courage to commit to.

In contrast to this model, another path has emerged, one that is more costly and less noisy..

A path of the state that decided to bear the full decision, rather than fragment it among agents..

And to manage politics from the center, not from the margins.

This path does not rely on inflating secondary roles,

nor on creating influence from the shadows,

nor on marketing itself as a permanent mediator in every crisis.

Rather, it is based on a simpler and more dangerous principle:

Assuming direct responsibility is a condition for real influence.

In this context, the Saudi experience appears as a clear model of a calculated strategic transformation..

A transformation from managing the scene to assuming the decision..

From distributing roles to readjusting them..

From a policy of denial to a policy of direct action.

Saudi Arabia did not seek agents to speak on its behalf,

nor did it delegate its regional crises to those operating in gray areas,

nor did it manage its major files with the logic of safe distance or deferred costs.

This choice was not the easiest,

nor the least costly,

but it was the clearest and most sustainable.

In contrast, another model has emerged in the region..

A model that prefers to operate through agency,

accumulates indirect roles,

and expands its influence through multiple arenas rather than assuming responsibility.

A model that excels at appearing as a mediator,

practices the role as a party,

and retreats to the shadows when difficult questions arise.

This model long wagered that agency grants influence without cost,

and that managing crises from behind protects it from accountability,

but recent transformations have revealed the limitations of this wager.

When the state returns to the center of decision-making,

the agent's space automatically shrinks..

And when everyone is asked to bear the consequences of their actions,

the role of those accustomed to acting without a signature diminishes.

Many still wonder:

Why has the rhythm changed?

And why has the discourse softened?

And why do some capitals no longer dominate the scene as they used to?

The answer is clear to those who read the transformation deeply:

The region is moving from a phase of managing conflict through agency,

to a phase where politics is managed by the logic of a responsible state.

In this phase,

there is no need for excessive explanation,

and no value in noise,

because when a decision is made from its natural center, it is understood by its results, not by its discourse.

The region is not managed by agents,

because the agent does not create stability,

does not sign peace,

and does not bear the cost when circumstances change.

Only states do that..

And when the state governs,

the era of agency ends..

And the era of the Saudi decision begins.