Saudi Arabia: The Kingdom's Third Option

(References: The Power of Saudi Arabia's Islamic Leaders; Website of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia.)


When we last left Saudi Arabia's Royal Family, they were quite squarely between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.

First of all, let's make sure we understand in what way the Saudi government is in a predicament.

Recall how, during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the Saudi Government addressed the possibility of using oil as a weapon against the United States over Israeli policy (see reference):

In September, Deputy Oil Minister Prince Saud al-Faysal stated that "Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly now prepared to use its key position as a major world supplier of crude oil to bring pressure on the U.S. government to moderate its pro-Israeli policy."

And, of course, shortly thereafter the 1973 Oil Embargo made history.

What would have happened if, twenty-eight years later (2001), the following had occurred?

In September, President of the United States George W. Bush stated that "The United States is undoubtedly now prepared to use its key position as a major military power to bring pressure on the Saudi government to moderate its pro-terrorist policy."

What would happen if some US President were to say that at some point in the future?

I could envision Mecca and Medina being trampled underfoot by a powerful infidel army.

I wonder if Allah would be pleased with that....


But, perhaps Yankee Doodle isn't tolerant enough. Perhaps Yankee Doodle is a little Islamophobic. Perhaps Yankee Doodle should make a greater effort to appreciate the diversity of our world.

Okay. Here we go. I shall endeavor to learn a little about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

:)



From Government on the Saudi Embassy's website:

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam. The government is headed by the King, who is also the commander in chief of the military.

The King appoints a Crown Prince to help him with his duties. The Crown Prince is second in line to the throne.

The King governs with the help of the Council of Ministers, also called the Cabinet. There are 22 government ministries that are part of the Cabinet. Each ministry specializes in a different part of the government, such as foreign affairs, education and finance.

The King is also advised by a legislative body called the Consultative Council (Majlis Al-Shura). The Council proposes new laws and amends existing ones. It consists of 150 members who are appointed by the King for four-year terms that can be renewed.

The country is divided into 13 provinces, with a governor and deputy governor in each one. Each province has its own council that advises the governor and deals with the development of the province.

Because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, its judicial system is based on Islamic law (Shari’ah). The King is at the top of the legal system. He acts as the final court of appeal and can issue pardons.

So, basically, the King of Saudi Arabia is the boss of the Kingdom.

1) He is at the top of the Legislative Branch, and makes the laws.
2) He is at the top of the Executive Branch, and is responsible for executing and enforcing the laws.
3) And he is clearly at the top of the Judicial Branch, and has final authority for interpreting the laws.

Wow, I feel more tolerant already!

:)

Let's see if we can learn some more.

From Basic System of Government:

The Basic System of Government identifies the nature of the state, its goals and responsibilities, as well as the relationship between the ruler and citizens. It defines the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as an Arab and Islamic sovereign state; its religion is Islam and its constitution is the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah.

(This last paragraph is clarified in the fine print.)

The King, who also acts as prime minister, ensures the application of the Shari'ah and the State's general policy, and supervises the protection and defense of the nation. The Crown Prince is appointed by the King. Members of the Council of Ministers assist the King in the performance of his duties.

The new bylaws introduced for the system in 1992 further explain that the purpose of the State is to ensure the security and rights of all citizens and residents. It emphasizes the importance of the family as the nucleus of Saudi society. The family plays a vital role by teaching its members to adhere to Islamic values.

In defining the relationship between the ruler and the people, the system emphasizes the equality of all Saudi citizens. All are equal before God and in their concern for the well-being, security, dignity and progress of their nation. All citizens are also equal before the law.

So, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the King is responsible for the application of Islamic Law, known as Shari'ah, and that includes a mandate "to ensure the security and rights of all citizens and residents".

Wow! I feel ready for a test!

:)

I would like to devote a section of this post as a special message to his Highness, the King of Saudi Arabia, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, and his closest, most trusted advisors. If you are not in that group, you are on your honor to not read the following message! Remember, Allah is watching!




So, Your Highness & Royal Company, how are things going?

Ready to come to Jesus? Maybe later?

Been practicing swimming? Not a lot of places to practice in the desert?

I understand.

:)

You know, I think I see a way out of your predicament.

When your predecessor, Muhammad ibn Saud (may Allah be pleased with him) made his deal with his new friend Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (ditto) to spread Wahhab's beliefs about Islam, he set in motion a series of events which seems to have gotten out of control, and which now threatens the very existence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Saud's descendents, and the two places in the world holiest to Islam -- places of which (and people of whom) you are the custodian! You need to bring these events back under control.

Here's what you do:

As the country's supreme religious leader and Custodian of Islam's Two Holiest Mosques at Mecca and Medina, declare that Al Qaeda are Khawarij (which everyone in the Islamic World knows is true, by the way). Declare them to be in rebellion against Allah and the teachings of Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him). Declare that their jihad is a false jihad, and that it is a severe violation of Islamic Law, since they are killing other believers. Declare that battling against the khawarij terrorists is the only true jihad in light of khawarij outrages. Furthermore, since Islamic Law is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, declare that anyone who supports the khawarij terrorists is a traitor to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, guilty of treason, and will be dealt with appropriately.

As the King of Saudi Arabia, as the country's supreme religious leader and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, tell the Kingdom's religious leaders that they have wandered too far astray from true Islam, that they are preaching too much hatred, that they are driving people away from true Islam, and that they are converting themselves and others into khawarij. In short, tell them to get their act together.

When they appeal this through appropriate channels, and the case comes before the Kingdom's supreme religious leader and top justice of the judicial system, hear their case, then rule in favor of yourself, and offer them the choices to either 1) toe the line or 2) be arrested for treason.

Replace any leader -- religious, political or military -- that doesn't follow the new course; they all serve at your discretion.

Crack down on the all funding of and other support for terrorism. Put an end to it. Show the world that you are serious about the War on Terror, which is really a War on Khawarij Terrorists, which it is your holy duty before Allah to prosecute to the fullest of your abilities.

Once you are doing this, and so have gained credibility and prestige in the international arena, turn to the United States, and anyone else as appropriate, thank them for defending Islam's holiest places, and point out to them that, since those places are no longer threatened by invading armies, it is time for their military forces to leave the Kingdom, except for those few that you deem to be still of use to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. This will gain you further credibility and prestige in the Islamic World, especially within the Kingdom, since no one will be able to accuse you of being some infidel's puppet. The traditional, conservative Muslims will respect you. Your concern for Islam will be seen as genuine, in very sharp contrast to the "concern" of Osama bin Laden, who is making a handsome profit off his khawarij terrorist banditry.

Your Highness, you have been too tolerant, and the khawarij terrorists have taken shameless advantage of your tolerance and generosity. It is high time these khawarij terrorist bandits get put in their place!

I suggest, Your Highness, that you do it now, while there is still time....

In September, the President of the United States stated that "The United States is undoubtedly now prepared to use its key position as a major military power to bring pressure on the Saudi government to moderate its pro-terrorist policy."

"... or you are with the terrorists." Part II

From the 9/11 Commission Report (the numbers, which I have placed into brackets, are footnotes to the report):

Having issued directives to guide his administration's preparations for war, on Thursday, September 20, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress. "Tonight," he said, "we are a country awakened to danger." [80] The President blamed al Qaeda for 9/11 and the 1998 embassy bombings and, for the first time, declared that al Qaeda was "responsible for bombing the USS Cole." [81] He reiterated the ultimatum that had already been conveyed privately. "The Taliban must act, and act immediately," he said. "They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." [82] The President added that America's quarrel was not with Islam: "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them." Other regimes faced hard choices, he pointed out: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

My summary and some quotes from Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban:

Pakistan has worked a deal with the Taliban; reportedly, Islamabad will have more influence in southwestern Afghanistan, and the Taliban will be stronger for their coming push on the Kabul.

Interestingly, the Taliban will be able to use Pakistani terroritory (notice my ingenious spelling) for military movements in support of its war in Afghanistan.

Since Al Qaeda allegedly does not get along well with Pakistan (I question the sincerity of the animosity on both sides), one result of this deal supposedly has been the cooling of relations between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, with reported tension over ideological differences.

Despite their most successful spring offensive last year since being ousted in 2001, the Taliban realize they need the assistance of a state actor if they are to achieve "total victory".

...

Al-Qaeda does not fit into any plans involving Pakistan, but mutual respect between the al-Qaeda leadership and the Taliban still exists. All the same, there is tension over their ideological differences, and al-Qaeda sources believe it is just a matter of time before the sides part physically as well.

It is in this context that we now address US plans for hot-pursuit of Al Qaeda into Pakistani terroritory. Reports in Shadow boxing on Pakistan's border talk of a US that is very distrustful of Pakistan's "ability to conduct any credible military operations against militant hideouts". (Personally, I think that should have been phrased "intention to conduct....")

Keep in mind that with 1) Pakistan allowing the Taliban use of Pakistani terroritory for military movements, and with Al Qaeda reportedly 2a) leaving the area due to a desire to get closer to new war zones in Iraq and elsewhere and 2b) having a falling out with the Taliban, this hot-pursuit could wind up being a non-issue: Al Qaeda will be elsewhere, and the Taliban, while basing in Pakistan, will be fighting deep in Afghanistan. Consequently, the report sums up:

Pakistan will most likely do all it can to stall NATO and the US over the hot-pursuit issue, and should foreign forces eventually swarm over the border, they will in all probability be too late: the Taliban will be busy deep in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda will be operating from Iraq.

With that under consideration, the following is significant: in the context of a response to remarks by an Indian official about hot pursuit of terrorists in Kashmir...('Hot pursuit' will meet effective response: FO):

ISLAMABAD, March 5: Amid an international clamour over hot pursuits inside its territory, Pakistan on Monday sent out a stern warning that any aggression across its borders or across the Line of Control would be countered effectively.

"There should be no doubt in any one’s mind that any attempt to indulge in hot pursuits would receive a befitting response. Everyone should know that we have the capability and determination to deal with such threats and defend our borders," Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam categorically stated while responding to a question at a weekly news briefing here.

She said this when her attention was drawn to a statement by the Indian defence minister that India would chase any misadventure from the soil of Pakistan.

(See also Pakistan Warns: Stern Response to Any Aggression.)

So, let's summarize:

1) The Taliban and Al Qaeda are having a falling out. This was predictable. Theirs are closely-related Islamofascistic ideologies; each will, sooner or later, accuse the other of apostasy, of polytheism, or of something. That's the nature of the beast.

2) Pakistan is America's ally, and America is fighting the Taliban. But, Pakistan is working a deal with the Taliban that will be tremendous help for the Taliban's upcoming operations, as Islamabad hopes to garner a say in Afghanistan's future, which Islamabad must think belongs to the Taliban.

3) The US is planning for hot pursuit, with both ground and air units, of Al Qaeda terrorists into Pakistani terroritory. Pakistan hasn't explicitly referred to this, but doesn't seem to like it. On the other side, the US hasn't explicitly said that American forces will go after Taliban forces in Pakistan, but that seems to be developing.

4) Pakistan has assured the world, in the context of India and Kashmir, that it can protect all its terroritory, and will do so against any incursions. But, Pakistan has not consistently protected its terroritory against incursions by Al Qaeda, and not at all, it seems, against incursions by the Taliban.

Analysis:

1) Who cares? We knew it was going to happen sooner or later. If we could afford to leave them alone together long enough, they'd wipe each other out; no big loss.

2) Which side is Pakistan on?

3 & 4) If Pakistan can protect all its borders, why don't Pakistani forces go after Al Qaeda along the frontier with Afghanistan? If they really do have a significant military capability along all their borders, then they've been deliberately negligent in the War on Terror. I repeat my question: Which side is Pakistan on?

Maybe Pakistan isn't as hostile to Al Qaeda as Islamabad wants us to believe.

Al Qaeda is still close with the Taliban, and the Taliban has always been close to Pakistan. If Pakistan is willing to protect its borders against foreign incursions, will they fight US or NATO forces going after Al Qaeda inside of Pakistan? What about if US or NATO forces are going after Taliban forces inside of Pakistan? We know that Islamabad has given the Taliban the green light to operate there.

According to the reports, the US has talked about going after Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, in Pakistan. So, if our troops come under fire, and then the bad guys start getting clobbered and decide to run to Pakistan, are we going to stop at the border until we determine whether it's Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

Are we going to permit the Taliban a safe haven to regroup, rearm, reorganize, etc?

As Benjamin Netanyahu said, "It's the regime, stupid."

From US, Pakistan to take stock of their bitter-sweet ties:

WASHINGTON, March 5: The second session of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue will be held in Islamabad next week at a time when relations between the United States and one of its key allies in the war against terror seem to be deteriorating rapidly.

...

The first session of the strategic dialogue was held in April last year in Washington where both sides agreed to enhance their efforts to fight terrorism and pledged to increase bilateral trade.

...

But the situation has changed so rapidly during the last six months that 2006 seems like another era. Since the Democratic victory in November’s congressional elections, Pakistan has been constantly targeted for its alleged failure to rein in Taliban and Al Qaeda militants hiding in the tribal belt.

Wait a minute!

Am I to understand that the Democrats are the ones pushing this issue?

I thought the Democrats were the ones who were going to be soft on terror if they got into power somehow.

Are the Democrats pointing this out to Bush, and Bush didn't know? Perhaps the people connecting the dots for Bush on where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been based were the same ones connecting the dots prior to 9/11.

Or, has Bush been the one being soft on terror by not pressing the issue with Pakistan? And, now the Democrats are compelling Bush to do something?

Or, has the loss of Congress caused Bush to take his obligation to fight this War on Terror more seriously?

Those terrorists have been thriving in Pakistan the past few years; and they were there long before 9/11. Pakistan for many years was on the State Department's list of countries that sponsor terror.

Wasn't it amazing how quickly Islamabad saw the light in September of 2001?

By about noon eastern time (in the US) on September 11, 2001, it was pretty obvious to anyone with a television turned on that America was going to be kicking somebody's ass (pardon my language) really soon. And, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan knew what was going on right next door -- they had been buddies with the Taliban the whole time. America is a naval power, and the shortest way from the sea to Afghanistan is through Pakistan. Islamabad figured all this out pretty quickly.

I wonder why it has been taking us so long to figure things out....

The issue of Taliban resurgence in the tribal belt was discussed in bilateral meetings in 2006 as well but behind closed doors. In public both sides insisted that they had excellent cooperation on all issues.

This has changed. Now Pakistan is blamed, not only for its own failures but also for those of the Karzai government as well. And it is not just the Democrats who criticize Pakistan. Senior administration officials also do so.

The former director National Intelligence John Negroponte told a Senate committee on Jan 12 that the leaders of Al Qaeda had found a secure hideout in Pakistan from where they were rebuilding their strength.

His successor, retired vice admiral Michael McConnell, identified Pakistan as a "major source" of religious terrorism at a Senate hearing last week and said that Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri were probably also hiding on the Pakistani side of the Pak-Afghan border.

Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples told the same hearing that "Pakistan-based militants' continued attacks against India undermine Pakistan's ability to make lasting peace with its neighbour".

Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the outgoing top US commander in Afghanistan, called for direct US military strikes on alleged terrorist hideouts inside Pakistan and, according to Senator Diane Feinstein, Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a similar message to President Musharraf when he met him in Islamabad a week ago.

"It's the regime, stupid." I'm glad to see somebody is starting to catch on to what Netanyahu was trying to tell us.

President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Mr. President, are you sure there isn't a third option?

"... or you are with the terrorists." Part I

From the 9/11 Commission Report (the numbers, which I have placed into brackets, are footnotes to the report):

Having issued directives to guide his administration's preparations for war, on Thursday, September 20, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress. "Tonight," he said, "we are a country awakened to danger." [80] The President blamed al Qaeda for 9/11 and the 1998 embassy bombings and, for the first time, declared that al Qaeda was "responsible for bombing the USS Cole." [81] He reiterated the ultimatum that had already been conveyed privately. "The Taliban must act, and act immediately," he said. "They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." [82] The President added that America's quarrel was not with Islam: "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them." Other regimes faced hard choices, he pointed out: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

From AL-QAEDA'S RESURGENCE, Part 1: Ready to take on the world at Asia Times Online:

Deal with the devil
Before the "Mother of all Battles", the Gulf War of 1991, bin Laden offered to help the Saudi monarchy fight Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwait. The Saudi royalty ignored the offer and opted instead for US military assistance. The presence of these troops in the land of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina inflamed bin Laden, and he split with the Saudi royalty.

Nevertheless, the growing influence of Shi'ite Iran in the Middle East, especially in Iraq after the US invasion of 2003 and Lebanon, concerned al-Qaeda and the anti-Shi'ite Salafi Saudi oligarchs, which included the royal family, scholars, tribes and the state apparatus.

In this environment, a speech by bin Laden was aired on Al-Jazeera television in which he called the Saudi monarchy extremely corrupt, the most contemptuous aspect of which was its alliance with US interests. Having said that, he asked the Saudi monarchy to step aside, saying that the mujahideen did not at that stage want to confront it. Rather, the Saudis should leave al-Qaeda alone to fight against Americans in Iraq.

First of all, what is striking to me is the title of this section of the article. I have a post that analyzes the historical interaction of the Saudi Royal Family with those who preach hatred and terror. My post came out before this article, and I am quite confident the author of this article hasn't read my little blog.

That means that different people, analyzing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its connection to terrorism, not only come to similar conclusions, but go so far as to describe what they see with the same expression: "Deal with the Devil".

"[Bin Laden] asked the Saudi monarchy to step aside, saying that the mujahideen did not at that stage want to confront it."

The terrorists want Saudi Arabia to allow them to battle the infidels first; later on, they'll come back to deal with the apostates and the takfir.

The speech was, in fact, the beginning of dialogue between al-Qaeda and the Saudi royal family through various Muslim scholars at numerous places in the Middle East. Eventually, the Saudis agreed to turn a blind eye to Maaskar al-Battar (al-Qaeda's training camp) in Saudi Arabia on condition that the fighters would not carry out any operations in Saudi Arabia and go straight to Iraq.

And the Saudis happily went along with it. They will keep selling oil to America and everyone else, and channeling their petrodollars to fuel the hateful fires of terrorism, provided that their own goose doesn't get cooked just yet.

The contact Asia Times Online spoke to said that al-Qaeda is so powerful in Saudi Arabia that the monarchy had no choice but to strike a deal. Similarly, it was al-Qaeda's choice, he said, that it concentrate this year on Iraq.

The way that al-Qaeda sees it, it will consolidate in Iraq to the extent that it and the "coalition of the willing" have their respective and identified occupied areas from which to fight each other.

Al Qaeda isn't even timid about this.

The Saudi front is thus only deferred until al-Qaeda gains sufficient ground in Iraq.

This was foreseeable when Wahhab worked his deal with ibn Saud three centuries ago.

The "arrangement" between al-Qaeda and the Saudis reveals a diplomatic double-step by Saudi Arabia, which Washington considers an important ally in the "war on terror" and in helping establish a Sunni front against rising Shi'ite power in the region, led by Iran.

So, wait a minute. Is Saudi Arabia doing this behind Washington's back, and Bush doesn't know?

That could be believable, considering the quality of intelligence support he has supposedly been getting: it seems the dots, once connected, led Bush to Baghdad, and since then haven't been able to lead him back out.

But, maybe the American intelligence community, for all its shortcomings, is better than we give it credit for.

Maybe our analysts have connected the dots, and drawn an accurate picture, perhaps even a beautifully accurate one. Beauty, though, is in the eye of the beholder, and perhaps the Oval Office's beholder sees something different.

Perhaps he wants to see something different.

Could it be....

1) Could it be that Bush knew all along that Iraq was not connected with Al Qaeda? Could it be that the War on Terror, while a serious matter, was also a convenient excuse to get rid of Hussein?

2) Could it be that Bush miscalulated, and now finds he has a tiger by the tail in Mesopotamia?

3) Could it be that Bush views the Persian Gulf the same way Washington has for decades, seeing Iran as the greater threat to US interests?

We know Saudi Arabia has long felt threatened by Iran. We know that Saudi Arabia's Wahhabis have waged aggressive war of annihilation against Shiites, and preach such war today. Shiism is the main form of Islam practiced in Iran. No wonder the Kingdom feels threated. What if Tehran decides to get some payback?

A powerful Iran seeking nuclear weapons on one side, khawarij Al Qaeda terrorists who already have nuclear weapons on the other.... It's not just Saudi Arabia between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.

Could it be that President Bush and his friends in Riyadh now see Al Qaeda as an ally that can offset growing Iranian influence in Iraq and a growing Iranian threat to Saudi Arabia?

Preparing for war
Al-Qaeda uses Maaskar al-Battar in Saudi Arabia to train youths in guerrilla warfare, including the use of SA-7 surface-to-air missiles.

...

In the meantime, the Maaskar al-Battar camp is preparing to send an additional 10,000 trained youths into Iraq by the middle of the year.

President Bush, you are with the Saudis, and the Saudis are with the terrorists.

President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Mr. President, are you sure there isn't a third option?




Another blogger's post related to this topic:

Worrying -- and not surprising

The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea

An article entitled Five Myths About U.S.-Saudi Relations:

Author: Rachel Bronson, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies

May 21, 2006
The Washington Post

The United States and Saudi Arabia form one of the world’s most misunderstood partnerships. The Saudis are a longtime oil supplier for the U.S. economy—but on 9/11, their kingdom accounted for 15 of the 19 hijackers. The Bush family and the House of Saud are close—yet Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls for greater democracy in the region. To understand the relationship, a few misconceptions must be debunked:

1. The U.S.-Saudi relationship is a bargain of oil for security.

There’s more to it than that. Oil is, of course, critical to U.S.-Saudi ties—it can hardly be otherwise for the world’s largest consumer and largest producer. But Washington’s relationship with Riyadh more closely resembles its friendly ties to oil-poor Middle Eastern states such as Jordan, Egypt and Israel than its traditionally hostile relations with oil-rich states such as Libya and Iran. Deep oil reserves have never translated into easy relations with the United States.

A major reason for the close ties between the two nations was their common Cold War fight against communism. Both countries worried about the Soviet Union, and that solidified their oil and defense interests, and minimized differences. In hindsight, by supporting religious zealots in the battle against communism, the two countries contributed to the rise of radical Islamic movements.

2. The 9/11 hijackers undermined otherwise strong U.S.-Saudi ties.

Actually, things were never that smooth. Historians refer to the “special relationship” established when Saudi Arabia’s King Abdel Aziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt met in 1945. But since then the relationship has endured oil embargoes, U.S. restrictions on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and tensions around Israel and Palestine. Dissension permeates the entire history of U.S.-Saudi relations.

Since the end of the Cold War, relations have become particularly fraught, with the 9/11 attacks being the most recent issue. Oil, defense and some regional interests keep the countries together, but both sides have made clear that the relationship is less special today. In 2005, Rice stated that “for 60 years…the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East—and we achieved neither.”

Meanwhile, members of the Saudi royal family are debating the utility of close ties with the Americans.

3. The Bush family and the House of Saud are too close for comfort.

An overstatement. Filmmaker Michael Moore and others are fond of pointing to the personal and business ties between the Bush family and the reigning Saud family. Unquestionably, the two families are close, in no small part because Saudi Arabia contributed to Operation Desert Storm in 1991, one of the highlights of President George H.W. Bush’s tenure. The late King Fahd provided extensive financial and political assistance to the operation, and allowed U.S. troops on Saudi soil.

But there is little evidence to suggest that such support has led the Bush family to make decisions at odds with U.S. interests. All previous presidents have sought close relations with the kingdom, recognizing its value to the United States. Even presidents such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, who were initially skeptical of the Saudis, found themselves drawn to this relationship for strategic reasons.

4. Washington can call the shots with the Saudis because the United States is all-important to them.

It’s more complex than that. Growing oil demand from China, India and the developing world means that others are pursuing closer ties with the kingdom. Chinese President Hu Jintao flew from Washington to Riyadh in April, despite Bush administration protests that China was “locking up long-term oil deals” with oil-rich countries.

Last year, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, stated that Saudi Arabia and China now have a “strategic relationship,” because Saudi Arabia is the largest supplier of crude to China. Of course, Beijing will not replace Washington as the Saudis’ key global partner. But growing oil demand elsewhere radically alters the options at Saudi Arabia’s disposal.

5. The House of Saud is about to collapse.

Not likely. Since the Saudi monarchy’s earliest days, observers have anticipated its demise. However, it has shown a remarkable ability to overcome such challenges as palace infighting, assassination and incapacitated leaders. There are still many sons of kingdom founder Abdel Aziz waiting in an orderly queue for their chance to reign.

This hardly means the Saudi rulers will have an easy time of it. Osama bin Laden has made toppling the House of Saud one of his key goals, and there have been a series of al-Qaeda attacks since May 2003. Also, Saudi Arabia faces demographic challenges: Sixty percent of the population is younger than 25, and jobs for them are scarce.

Meanwhile, insurgent fighters eventually will return from Iraq, trained and determined, and the Sunni-Shiite battles of Iraq can easily spill into Saudi Arabia, where Shiites make up 10 to 15 percent of the population.

But the cleavages common before a revolution are not visible in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom is now aggressively pursuing terrorists on its soil, and reform-minded Saudis view King Abdullah as an ally.

Washington would be better off planning on the royal family enduring. It’s also the best chance Washington has to realize its oil and counterterrorism goals—and avoid alternatives that could be worse.

Here are my comments regarding this article:

1. It is important to note that the author stated that there is “more to it than that”. American relations with Saudi Arabia became important towards the end of World War II as the US Government considered that American oil reserves in Oklahoma and Texas were becoming depleted, in big part due to the war effort. Much of the reason President Roosevelt sought closer relations with Saudi Arabia was to gain access to Saudi oil. However, as World War II ended and the Cold War began and progressed, both the US and Saudi Arabia were concerned about the Soviet Union, each side for its own reasons. Towards the end of the Cold War, they found common cause in supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan; those birds are now coming back to roost.

2. American policy is often shortsighted. There is a distinctive volatility to it, as well, as presidents of different ideological leanings alternate setting the course in foreign affairs (some courses far more foolish and shortsighted than others).

But, the Saudi Kingdom has long played a game of “both ends against the middle” in dealing with foreign powers. And, the connection between the violent spread of Wahhabism and the Saudi Royal Family goes all the way back to the days when Wahhab was a refugee protected in a small piece of desert run by a guy named Saud – roughly three centuries ago.

3. Indeed, it would be going way too far to suggest what would essentially be treason on the part of the Bush family. However, it is not at all too far to question whether President Bush’s friendly relations with the House of Saud have not resulted in unwise foreign policy decisions.

4. It seems apparent to me that the Saudis wish to diversify the group of those who can influence their decision-making, so as to be no one’s puppet. And, that is fair and understandable. However, Washington has more influence than it is willing to use. Part of the problem here may be the close ties addressed in 3), but part is also the nearly schizophrenic nature of American foreign policy due to 2) above in particular and the fact that America is a two-party country in general.

We can get our oil elsewhere, and the Saudis can sell their oil elsewhere.

Beyond that, America could be almost self-sufficient for a time by opening up drilling in certain areas of the Arctic. That would buy us time while we convert to renewable energy sources using off-the-shelf technology to make fuel from America’s agricultural products. And, fusion energy is closer than we think.

Contrast that to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have spent their petrocash on a variety of things, including the spread of terroristic hatred. Significantly, they have not invested in industrializing the Kingdom. “Sixty percent of the population is younger than 25, and jobs for them are scarce.” No wonder Saudi Arabia’s major exports are 1) jihad, 2) oil, and 3) Mujahideen. Consequently, if they don’t sell their oil, they’re screwed; and, when their oil runs out, they’re screwed.

By the way, did you know their oil is running out?

The Saudis will tell you that they can increase production at the drop of a hat and maintain it indefinitely. That assertion flies in the face of the facts.

There have been no new discoveries of significant oil reserves (read this, you may disagree) in the Kingdom in the past couple of decades. Their production comes from pumping oil fields that have been around for many years. And, that production is only maintained by pumping water down into the ground on the periphery of the oil fields to maintain pressure for oil extraction in the center. Their production will go down, not up, and that descent could start to happen any day.

Saudi Arabia needs the rest of the world – especially the US – far more than the rest of the world – especially the US – needs Saudi Arabia. Yet we put up with a state, many members of whose Royal Family actively sponsor terrorism, and all of whom sponsor the hatred that foments the terror.

Why?

The tail is wagging the dog.

5. This has led us to an interesting dilemma.

If America promotes democracy in Saudi Arabia, there’s a good chance the Saudi people would vote into power a Taliban-style theocracy. Yet, America does need to promote democracy. (The policy really should be one of spreading freedom. Freedom is thoroughly condemned by the preachers of hatred.)

If America does not promote democracy in Saudi Arabia, then we betray those in the Kingdom who are working for positive reform, and, by permitting repression, we, to a certain extent, fuel the radical Wahhabist elements bent on establishing an Islamic caliphate in the land of Mecca and Medina.

A big part of the legitimacy of the Saudi regime, as perceived in the Islamic World, is rooted in its conservative Islamic traditions, necessary for the Kingdom as keeper of the two holiest places in the Islamic World – Mecca and Medina.

A big part of the illegitimacy of the Saudi regime, as perceived in the (radicalized) Islamic World, is rooted in the fact that Saudi Arabia is not conservative enough, not enough like the Taliban.

And this is where it all flies apart....

If the Saudi Government liberalizes and democratizes, that will make the radical Islamists seem to be right in the eyes of more of the Islamic World, an Islamic World that has been radicalized with preaching and mosques paid for by Saudi Arabia; it could help the radicals to overthrow the Saudi regime. But, if the Saudi Government doesn’t liberalize and democratize, the Kingdom faces internal pressure from citizens who increasingly want basic rights that people in other countries take for granted, and it limits the potential for industrialization, which will be needed to replace oil revenue.

If the Saudi Government declares a real war on its terrorists, it faces a significant backlash from a radicalized Islamic World. But, if it doesn’t, the Islamists might succeed in overthrowing the regime and establishing their Caliphate. (Also, the non-Islamic World might get serious about making Riyadh get serious in the War on Terror – though if I were the king, I wouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about that.)

So, meanwhile, the Saudi Government pays off the industrialized (and industrializing) world by keeping the oil flowing. The petrobucks flow back, and that money is used to pay off Saudi citizens to minimize discontent, and to pay off enough of the terrorists so they focus their attacks on targets other than the Kingdom. Everybody is content with the stability provided by riding the gravy train of Saudi oil. But, as mentioned above, the end of the line is near for that gravy train....

Radicalized Islamic terrorists on one side, infidel and takfir targets of their hatred on the other. Those who want to liberalize on one side, those who want to radicalize on the other.

There sits the Saudi Royal Family in Riyadh, geographically kind of towards the center of their Kingdom: Mecca and Medina are on one side, the Persian Gulf on the other.

Ideologically, however, the Royal Family is quite squarely between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.

What can they do? How can they escape?


Here are some suggestions for the Royal Family:


1) Get down on your knees, beg Jesus for forgiveness, and ask Him to help you out.

(Not likely, huh?)


2) Practice swimming.

(Not amusing, huh?)



There might be a third option....