The only question for them is if higher prices lead to lower consumption by the use of alternatives, or energy savings, which reduce demand durably and not just punctually.

If they think that demand is dynamic enough to justify current prices, then they can decide to not fight them and enjoy them instead. But they are using the exact opposite argument.

Which makes for good diplomacy, of course, and allows the real issues to remain undiscussed...

The key problem is that the argument keeps changing yet oil production remains stagnant. From memory at first it was fear that prices could drop then refineries where maxed out then ...

Anyone with a teenager should be able to easily see this sort of reasoning.

My next guess is they are concerned about global warming and want to encourage the world to wean itself off of oil.

Being such nice guys and all.

Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, 54 are past their “Peak Oil” production and are now in decline, including the USA, down 11% since 1971, and the UK’s North Sea oil reserves are down 27% since peaking in 1999. Other big oil producers (more than 500,000 bpd) that are in decline include Australia, down 26% since 2001, and Norway, down 13% since 2001. The Cantarell oil field, Mexico’s largest has also peaked with its output falling to 1.7 million bpd in 2007, down from its peak output of 2.1 million bpd.
Global Oil Shock
I would have to disagree the demand is there.

Remember, there's no transparency in Aramco's business. Take on faith or not at all.

"past their “Peak Oil” production and are now in decline, including the USA, down 11% since 1971"

No, the USA is down about 50% since 1971. It's declining at an average 2% per year. At this rate, the USA will be at 25% of peak by 2030, producing 2mb/d - about 10% of today's consumption. The extra 90% will need to be imported, assuming consumption does not increase.

Consumption in the USA has increased at about 2% per year since 1971, so it too should double by 2030, meaning that the USA will at that time produce 5% the oil it consumes, thus requiring imports to cover the remaining 95%.

If the Saudi's think that their productive capacity is dropping as fast or faster than permanent demand distruction, then they lose nothing by demand distruction and only gain by high prices .Since their family gains by their merchandise (oil) being worth more money rather than usury (dividends on stocks and interest on bonds) , and high prices encourages their customers to change as the oil is used up, this policy looks like an expression of the will of Allah too.
Bob Ebersole

"The only question for them is if higher prices lead to lower consumption by the use of alternatives, or energy savings..."

Let's be honest here. There are no viable alternatives for oil today. There are a few that work, but not scale, and there are a lots that fail to even work. They can't be very afraid of alternatives.

Lower consuption also isn't that scary. People will lower its consuption because the price is too hight, consequently, they won't make it so low that the price starts to fall, at best, it stops increasing.

Saudi Arabia simply has no motivation to inrease production. Peaked or not. (Well, that is still a peak, isn't it?)