"Saudi Arabia probably would be one of the first casualties after an attack on Iran by ..... certain quarters,"

USNews, here

"... Just how deeply disappointed the Saudi royal family must have been with George W. Bush, who along with his father once enjoyed personally cordial ties with the royals, became a bit clearer on Monday at a conference in Washington. "Trials and tribulations of the recent past" is how the kingdom's current minister of commerce and industry, Abdullah Alireza, described the Bush years. He also referred to the last eight years as a "long hibernation." That was an apparent reference to the Saudi (and widespread Arab) view that the Bush administration had taken a long absence from even-handed mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.............

Saudi annoyance with the Bush administration was driven first and foremost by Bush's decision to invade neighboring Iraq in 2003. The kingdom's diplomats, while no fans of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, feared that U.S. military intervention would trigger violence between Shiites and Sunnis, lead to Shiite control, and open a path for Iranian influence. To varying degrees, all of those things happened...........

The Saudis also faulted Bush for maintaining what they regarded as such tight ties to Israel—to the exclusion of Arab views—that Washington was incapable of netting significant progress on the peace process. And the Saudis saw the Bush administration as unwilling to push Israel to curb military attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza (come again?) that resulted in civilian deaths. A Saudi-authored outline for peace also languished during the period...

The Saudis made clear that they still have their worries. Alireza warned that an attack on Iran would "open up a Wild West in the Middle East." He added, "Saudi Arabia probably would be one of the first casualties after an attack on Iran by certain quarters," presumably a reference to Israel..."