Saudi Arabia's problems are the world's problems?

[Leaper]

Okay, I'll admit this is a bit of a weak thing to base a thread off of, but I thought this was interesting.

This blog mentions an Atlantic Monthly article that analyzes the current government of Saudi Arabia. Here are its assertions (albeit secondhand):

1) The Saudis are ardent sponsors of terrorism.

2) Without the House of Saud, there would probably be a lot more terrorism.

3) The world economy (including the U.S. economy) will probably collapse if the House of Saud should ever implode, and lose countrol of Saudi oil.

4) The House of Saud will implode -- probably sooner rather than later -- and lose control of Saudi oil.

Obviously, I'd be better able to talk about this if I had the article, which I don't. But even without the article's actual assertions, and its support, I think these are interesting enough points to debate.

What do you all think, especially those of you who might've read this story?

[tomndebb]

It appears that The Fall of the House of Saud by Robert Baer will not be available on-line until the June issue is released (and will require subscription at that time). (Provided, of course, that I have not misread the explanation at their web site: The Atlantic Monthly Volume 291 No. 4 May 2003)

[Dinsdale]

I read the article a week or so ago. Interesting, and a little scary.
Several interesting points from my recollection (tho I have not confirmed any thru independent study):

-Saudi oil production is highly susceptible to terror attacks. Said vast majority of production comes from very limited number of fields, which is processed/transported at very limited number of centers/pipelines. Listed maybe 9 or so major sites where a blast such as struck the Cole could significantly impact the world oil market. The amount of oil produced by SA is truly huge compared to all others, as well as the percentage of SA oil US uses.
-US has ignored Saudi problems, and has supported Saud family, primarily to retain access to oil. Cited many high level instances of revolving door between government and oil industry.
-Saud family is out of touch with fundamental Islam. Also cites human rights violations by Sauds. Says Sauds fund terror abroad, to dissuade it at home. Notes tremendous Saudi link to 9/11.
-Saud family is huge and growing quicly. (30,000 or so? - multiple wives and many children.) Questions whether even country as rich as SA can afford them and their perks. I believe per capita income in SA is way down compared to previous decades.
-Discussed power struggles between various element of Saud family - dating back to date in 80s when King had stroke.

Interesting article, tho about a subject I know nothing about, so I could not truly judge its accuracy. I believe the ex-CIA author has a book on the same subject coming out.

[scotandrsn]

I am not familiar with the extent to which other nations rely specifically on Saudi oil, but for the duration of time that we insist on relying on an oil-based energy policy, Saudi Arabia's problems are certainly the problems of the United States.

I believe the most telling example of this was our involvement in the Persian Gulf War. Most of the stated reasons for out participation ring false. Saddam Hussein was only one of many dictators throughout the world, Kuwait was not a democracy, and our history of participating in UN military efforts did not foretell(sp?) such a heavy involvement.'

So why was it such a big deal for us to go in? I believe it is because Hussein threatened Saudi Arabia, and we became, by way of our oil interests, Saudi Arabia's hired gun.

[The Calculus of Logic]

Originally posted by scotandrsn

So why was it such a big deal for us to go in? I believe it is because Hussein threatened Saudi Arabia, and we became, by way of our oil interests, Saudi Arabia's hired gun.

Not just saudi Arabia, Kuwait too. Kuwait has about 96 billion barrels of oil, almost as much as Iraq.

[torben]

This is exactly why the U.S. needs to find another source of energy and stop relying so heavily on oil. The more dependent we are on Saudi (and other countries in the MiddleEast) oil, the more control these countries have over us. Considering that alot of these countries are our enemies and sponsors of terrorism, I find this dependency pretty scary. The sooner we get rid of our need for oil the better off we'll be.

[rjung]

From this administration? You must be kidding.

[scotandrsn]

Originally posted by rjung
From this administration? You must be kidding.

The oilmen have never gotten over the fact that in the 1960s, we went from being a net oil exporter to a net oil importer.

I think 35 years is far too long to live in a dream world. They can't get over the fact that the oil just DRIED UP almost overnight. Petroleum geologists make big bucks these days trolling for whatever dregs are left outside of the Middle East.Creating an energy alternative should have been a top ten priority from Nixon onward.

In the 1980s, a travelling exhibit came through town about Suadi Arabia, divided into three sections. The first was about the country and the people. The second, the best presentation of the basic facts about Islam I have seen before or since. The third was an open floor with several dozen architect's scale models of new construction in Saudi Arabia: schools, hospitals, governement buildings, each more modern and gorgeous than the last. I was only a teenager at the time, and even then I thought: "If we didn't feel the need to give them all that money for oil, WE could have all these new buildings."

It has made me distrust all yahoos who claim we simply can't afford to try different forms of energy. We can't afford not to.

[Leaper]

Apparently, someone's posted the article I refer to in the OP right here. Now everyone can quake in fear (as the guy whose blog first pointed this out to me suggests)...