[Saudi Arabia:] Not Friend or Foe

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - friend or foe of America? Having been asked exactly this question on such shows as CNN’s “Crossfire” and ABC’s “Nightline,” I’ve come to the conclusion that the answer is “neither.” Rather, Saudi Arabia is a rival.

Saudi Arabia has been friendly to the extent that, since a dying Franklin D. Roosevelt met an aging King Ibn Saud in 1945, its leaders have kept their part of a crucial bargain: They provide oil and gas and in return Washington provides security.

This deal has sometimes held, as when the Saudis opened their oil spigot, to the annoyance of their fellow energy exporters; or when a half million U.S. troops were rushed over to Saudi Arabia in 1990-91 as Iraq threatened the kingdom.

In other ways, however, the relationship has been hostile, as in 1973-74, when a Saudi oil embargo helped spur the deepest economic crisis in the United States since the Great Depression. Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey has stated, “Much of the money for al Qaeda has come from Saudi Arabia,” tying the Saudis directly to 9/11.

And since September, they repeatedly have failed Americans. They neither endorsed the U.S. attack on the Taliban, cracked down on their own bin Laden sympathizers, forthrightly acknowledged the role of Saudis on 9/11 nor made a priority of closing down the continuing financial flows to al Qaeda.

More, as a leading Saudi figure warned just last month, the kingdom might join America’s enemies to survive: “If that means we move to the right of [Osama] bin Laden, so be it; to the left of [Libya’s ruler Moammar] Khadafy, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam [Hussein] like a brother, so be it.”

This cannot be dismissed as an empty threat. Symbolic of these tensions, the Pentagon recently excluded the kingdom from a listing of U.S. allies in the war on terrorism.

Such differences mean that Saudi Arabia cannot be thought of as an ally. Instead, it should be seen as a rival, along the lines of like France, Russia or China.

Granted, compared to those three, Saudi Arabia looks pretty unimpressive, with a population officially estimated at 22 million, a political system dominated by thousands of princes and an economy deeply dependent on oil revenues. Its culture is notoriously backward (women banned from driving), closed-minded (total censorship) and barbaric (executions as public spectacles).

Despite these disadvantages, the kingdom’s rulers see themselves as leaders of the billion or so Muslims worldwide and the vanguard of a movement that eventually will vanquish and replace Western civilization, which they dismiss as corrupt and doomed.

This outsized ambition derives in part from the Saudi state being “protector of the two holy places,” the cities of Mecca and Medina. In part, it emerges from Wahhabism, the extremist vision of Islam that predominates in Saudi Arabia.

Worse, as The New York Times recently noted, an ever-more radical version of Wahhabism is gaining strength in the kingdom: an “extremist, anti-Western world view has gradually pervaded the Saudi education system with its heavy doses of mandatory religious instruction [and then it] seeped outside the classroom through mosque sermons, television shows and the Internet, coming to dominate the public discussions on religion.”

Anti-Western views have stuck; in particular, Saudis have shown themselves wildly sympathetic to bin Laden. One American hospital worker in Saudi Arabia reported “Saudi doctors and nurses around him celebrating on 9/11.” A confidential survey found some 95 percent of young educated Saudis sympathetic to his declaration of war against the United States.

A century ago, most Muslims viewed Wahhabism as little more than an Arabian curiosity. Today, thanks to vast oil revenues well spent, a vast Wahhabi institutional structure exists to spread these ideas, so that it has become a powerful force wherever Muslims live, from Afghanistan (where the Taliban embodied this ideology) to most mosques in the United States. There are times and places when cooperation with the government of Saudi Arabia makes sense.

There are also times and places when confronting it is necessary. The larger point is this: However much the United States predominates today, there are any number of would-be successors and Saudi Arabia is no less ambitious than the others. It must be watched with great caution.

Daniel Pipes, a historian, has led the Middle East Forum since its founding in 1994. He taught at Chicago, Harvard, Pepperdine, and the U.S. Naval War College. He served in five U.S. administrations, received two presidential appointments, and testified before many congressional committees. The author of 16 books on the Middle East, Islam, and other topics, Mr. Pipes writes a column for the Washington Times and the Spectator; his work has been translated into 39 languages. DanielPipes.org contains an archive of his writings and media appearances; he tweets at @DanielPipes. He received both his A.B. and Ph.D. from Harvard. The Washington Post deems him “perhaps the most prominent U.S. scholar on radical Islam.” Al-Qaeda invited Mr. Pipes to convert and Edward Said called him an “Orientalist.”
See more from this Author
Türkiye, Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia Would Be Fighting Each Other Instead of the United States and Its Allies
A Weaker U.S. May Compel Allies to Increase Strength
October 7 Changed Everything in Israel, They Said. But Did It?
See more on this Topic
I recently witnessed something I haven’t seen in a long time. On Friday, August 16, 2024, a group of pro-Hamas activists packed up their signs and went home in the face of spirited and non-violent opposition from a coalition of pro-American Iranians and American Jews. The last time I saw anything like that happen was in 2006 or 2007, when I led a crowd of Israel supporters in chants in order to silence a heckler standing on the sidewalk near the town common in Amherst, Massachusetts. The ridicule was enough to prompt him and his fellow anti-Israel activists to walk away, as we cheered their departure. It was glorious.