5 Myths About U.S.-Saudi Relations
By Rachel BronsonT he 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.2 The 9/11 hijackers undermined otherwise strong U.S.- Saudi ties.
3 The Bush family and the House of Saud are too close for comfort.
4 Washington can call the shots with the Saudis because the United States is all-important to them.
5 The House of Saud is about to collapse.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
May:22:2006 - 00:12
Hmmm?
1 The U.S.-Saudi relationship is a bargain of oil for security – true.
…(Americas) traditionally hostile relations with oil-rich states such as Libya and Iran.
America tradionally enjoyed a very good relationship with both the Shah in Iran and King in Libya, the recent hostility is a result of American backed these despots losing power to revolutions.
Also Saudi is a radical Islamic state, it should not take the benefit of hindsight to work out that supporting Saudi contributes to the growth of radical Islamic movements.
2 Agree with the author in saying relationship is not inherently stable.
Strangely after denying it in section 1 the author states that the relationship is indeed based on oil. Also based on defence (against the Soviet Union which was destroyed 15 years ago) and regional interests (which are not explained & not easily seen).
3 All previous presidents have sought close relations with the kingdom, recognizing its value to the United States. – Again because of OIL.
there is little evidence to suggest that such support has led the Bush family to make decisions at odds with U.S. interests.
Clinton factored in the attacks on the USS Cole and African embassies by radical Islamists and decided that the relationship to the radical Islamists of Saudi was justified, because of the oil. Bush has factored in the deaths of 3000 American civilians in a radical Islamist terrorist attack and decided that the relationship to the radical Islamists of Saudi was justified, because of the oil. Upwards of 20,000 Iraqi civilians have died due to actions by radical Islamists, the next President will factor…
4 Washington could call the shots with the Saudis because the United States is all-powerful compared to them. It doesn’t because it has this “special relationshipâ€.
5 The House of Saud is a very rich police state with no external enemies of any worth. Police states can rule themselves indefinitely if left to their own devices (pick a Chinese dynasty). They can however be shocked into collapse by economic ruin (when the oil runs out in 80 years) or an externally supported revolution (like the Soviets did for the Shah). Only there aren’t any external enemies, because the world’s only superpower is in a “special relationship†with this police state.
and reform-minded Saudis view King Abdullah as an ally.
Or are locked up on charges of sedition or non-Islamic thought or caned a hundred times for practicing witchcraft…
May:22:2006 - 10:31
I do recommend you read Bronson’s book. It has a lot of information that you seem not to recognize. Rather than a line-by-line comment, let me note just a few:
Saudi Arabia has had external enemies in addtion to the USSR. During the 1960s and 70s, its was Egypt, with which it fought a war (someetimes by proxy) in Yeman; in the 80s and 90s, the problems were with Iraq and Iran. Today, the problem is very much Iran and anyone paying attention to the Saudi media can see that. There is also the looming problem of “returnee jihadists”.