The Saudi Paradox

Abstract

Whichever candidate takes the presidential oath in 2005, the Oval Office inbox is sure to contain a large folder marked Three critical global problems intersect in the desert kingdom: the soaring price of oil; the Saudi role, passive or active, in promoting Islamic radicalism; and the possibility that archaic political system, with its thousands of privileged princes, may finally totter, destabilizing the strategically vital Persian Gulf. For decades, American presidents have paid only token attention to Saudi Arabia. In return for Riyadh's cooperation in keeping oil prices at tolerable levels (which also serve the kingdom's interests), and as a reward for Saudi Arabia's moderation on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Washington has played down the contentious issue of human rights and supplied the Saudis with sophisticated U.S. weaponry. But this long-standing, bipartisan arrangement was rendered obsolete by the new oil shock, by terror attacks within the kingdom, and by the September 1 1 assault on New York and Washington, planned by the Saudi Osama bin Laden and carried out by Saudi hijackers. Given the ongoing turmoil in Iraq and the ongoing deadlock between stateless Palestinians and terror-traumatized Israelis, the path of least resistance in U.S.-Saudi relations would be to limit the agenda to rhetoric in return for empty promises of reform from the Saudis thereby evading the tough questions in a troubled bilateral relationship. That would be a grave mistake. Before September 11, Americans generally thought of Saudis as moderate Arabs and were content to set aside differences with a generally obliging client state to ensure the smooth flow of Gulf oil. Washington wanted to believe that the Saudis provided an island of stability in a volatile region, to recall the sanguine phrase used by President Jimmy Carter to describe Reza Pahlavi s Iran in 1978, a year before the Shahs fall. Since September 11, many Americans have learned to rethink their no less sanguine views of Saudi Arabia. They have discovered that the affable demeanor of the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, conceals uncomfortable truths about his country. It is widely understood that the Saudi royal family has purchased protection for its anachronistic political system by ceding to radical Islamic movements the right to educate Saudi youth and to preach whatever they wish in the kingdom's mosques. Although Prince Bandar explains that the Saudi government has a modern and moderate view of the West, Saudi cabinet ministers argue with a straight face and without a royal rebuke that Israeli intelligence masterminded the 9/1 1 attacks.