"..What I want 
to stress is that 
the relationship 
between the 
United States and 
Saudi Arabia 
precedes oil, 
goes far beyond 
oil.." 

..a few examples.. Americans wrote the charter creating the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency.. instrumental in the introduction of paper money..  deeply involved in modernization of Saudi agriculture.. staffing the national airline.. the basic techniques of managing a modern government.. 

Thomas W. Lippman: One point I tried to make in my article was that there is much less in common between Iran in 1978-79 and Saudi Arabia today that might appear. The Shah of Iran was perceived by the Iranians to be an illegitimate ruler -- a usurper, installed on his throne by the CIA -- and a secularist who valued Iran's pre-Muslim Persian culture more than he valued Islam. None of those criticisms applies to the House of Saud.

As for departing the Kingdom, it might not be a bad idea for those Americans who can do so to spend the summer elsewhere and see what happens in the fall, but no mass exodus is called for.

McLean, Va.: Recently, the Chairman of ExxonMobil stated that it is "inevitable" that the U.S. and the rest of the world "will increasingly need energy from the Middle East." If what you say is correct about the Fall of the House of Saud, shouldn't the U.S. be doing everything it can to reduce its dependence on Persian Gulf oil?

Thomas W. Lippman: The United States is not dependent on "Middle East oil" per se. The United States -- like Japan, Germany, and other industrialized countries -- is dependent on imported oil. It doesn't matter where it comes from. Much of the U.S. supply comes from Venezuela, Mexico and Nigeria, for example. There is a single worldwide oil market; the source of any particular barrel is irrelevant. In my opinion, if the House of Saud were overthrown by extremist zealots of the Taliban variety, that new government would still have to sell as much oil into the world market as possible because it would have no other source of money to sustain the country. Of course the Middle East is increasingly important as the source of global supply, but it's misleading to characterize the United States as especially dependent on that part of the world.

Arlington, Va.: Is there any chance the Saudis could open up their society through free elections and still remain in power? Answer = No.

Thomas W. Lippman: You may be right, but how do you know?

Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.: It might make some feel better to hear the Saudis have forces searching for bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Is that the case? Are they receiving intelligence on his whereabouts from bin Laden family members?

Thomas W. Lippman: I am not aware that any Saudi forces are deployed outside the Kingdom. I have been to Saudi Arabia twice since 9/11, and I have not heard anyone suggest that the Saudis should undertake such a mission. It's an interesting idea.

Hanover, Pa.: The United States has been close friends of the Saudi family for many years. I have difficulty determining what, if anything, this friendship has gained us outside of the oil availability. Are there other advantages that are not as obvious as the oil access that I'm missing?

Thomas W. Lippman: The Saudis have actually done a lot for the United States over the past 40-50 years. During the Cold War, Saudi Arabia financed covert U.S. campaigns against pro-communist forces and governments in Nicaragua, Angola and especially Afghanistan. Whether sending funds to the Contras was a good idea or not is open to debate, but the Saudis were helpful. During the 1950s and 1960s, the era of pro-Moscow Arab socialist governments in key countries, the Saudis were an important obstacle to the spread of Moscow's interest in a vital region.

Economically, the Saudis joined the United States in a joint economic commission that worked for 25 years to ensure that as many of our oil dollars as possible were recycled into the U.S. economy. As purchasers of military equipment, electrical generating facilities, aircraft and other big-ticket items, the Saudis have been and remain important customers for U.S. companies.

Charlotte, N.C.: Is the House of Saud ever going to start making noticeable reforms like allowing women to drive, etc.?

Thomas W. Lippman: If you read my article, you will see that this process is already under way. I must say, however, that in many visits to Saudi Arabia going back to 1976, I have never met a Saudi woman who gave a damn about the right to drive; it matters more to us than to them. What is going to force a change in this policy is economics -- the country can't afford to keep importing men from Pakistan or wherever to work as chauffeurs for its women.

Albuquerque, N.M.: If the Saudis were to lose power and a revolution to take place successfully, who is most likely to assume power once the dust settles?

Thomas W. Lippman: This is very hard to forecast. Most analysts that I have talked to on my visits to the kingdom and here in the United States say the most likely new rulers would be some Taliban-style religious dictator who would do whatever was possible to purge the country of Western influences -- out would go McDonald's, Pizza Hut and English-language instruction in the schools, for example. Internet access would be restricted. Education of women would probably be cut off. The country's Shiite minority would be persecuted. Direct commercial dealings with American companies would be shut down. But, Saudi Arabia is not Afghanistan -- its people are much better educated -- especially its women -- and they have had much greater access to the outside world. Saudi Arabia is not so easy to isolate as was Afghanistan, especially if there is a democratic, secular Iraq just over the border. So, I don't know how long the Saudis would tolerate the kind of religious totalitarianism represented by bin Laden and the Taliban.

Silver Spring, Md.: You describe extremist adherents to the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia as "brown shirts," and I believe you described their actions as "fascist-like." Would you go so far as to use the same descriptors for Jewish extremists in Israel?

Thomas W. Lippman: If they shoot innocent people and blow up houses of worship, why not?

Charleston, S.C.: Catch 22?

If poverty results in Islamic youth being drawn to terrorism, what will happen after an alternative to oil is found, and these Middle Eastern countries lose the resource that provided for their people? We'll have an even worse situation on our hands.

Thomas W. Lippman: I question your premise. It's not necessarily true that Muslim terrorism arises from poverty. In the 1930s, the Muslim Brotherhood developed in Egypt among schoolteachers and civil servants, not the peasants. Note that the Saudis who participated in the 9/11 hijackings were not "poor" in the usual Third World sense; Mohamed Atta, for example, had a good technical education in Germany and had many career opportunities there.

Harrisburg, Pa.: How does the Saudi government, as well as Saudi dissidents, view their relationship with Iran and the role of their country in relation to Iran? Now that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and no longer has to worry about Iraq, is there concern that Iran's increasing dominance may pose threats to Saudi stability?

Thomas W. Lippman: Very good question, with no simple answers.

The Saudis and the Iranians cooperate, politely if not warmly, on many issues of importance to both countries, such as OPEC oil quotas and the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. On the other hand, Iran is a Shiite power that has challenged Saudi Arabia's position as leader of the Muslim world, and there have been serious tensions, especially in the 1980s when Saudi Arabia supported Iraq in its war with Iran. Acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would be a source of deep concern in Saudi Arabia -- even to the point that some Saudis believe the country would seek to acquire its own nuclear arsenal to balance the Iranian threat.

Arlington, Va.: Thus far, you have given extensive praise for the Saudi government. As you may be aware, despite a multi-million dollar advertisement campaign in the U.S., public opinion of the country and its rulers is extremely low. Can you speak for a moment about why you think that is, and what justifications American citizens might have for mistrusting that nation and its citizens?

Thomas W. Lippman: I don't believe it's correct that I have given "extensive praise" to the Saudi government. I have described its rulers as ruthless and its citizenry as restive. And, I have said that the impetus for reform, such as it is, comes most from economic considerations, not moral suasion or an embrace of Western values.

As for why Americans mistrust Saudi Arabia, I don't think we need look beyond 9/11 and its aftermath for the answer to that.

Bedford, N.Y.: Is there resentment among ordinary Saudis at the often lavish lifestyle of the royal family?

Thomas W. Lippman: Many people say there is, and it wouldn't be surprising, but it's very difficult for an outsider to get a good sense of what "ordinary Saudis" are really thinking.

Silver Spring, Md.: My parents are currently living in Saudi, where my father works for a foreign petrochemical company. They have been receiving mixed messages on leaving -- the media reports call for Americans to leave, the Ambassador visits their compound and says he was misquoted, and Americans should stay. I can't help but feel their lives are unnecessarily being risked, to keep oil prices down here. So far, they haven't received "permission" from their company to leave. Any thoughts?

Thomas W. Lippman: It's hard to see how anyone's life is being risked to keep oil prices down when they're at an all-time high. There is no doubt that Americans and other westerners in Saudi Arabia are in more danger than ever in the past, but keep it in proportion -- last month I wandered the streets of Riyadh and the old souk in Jeddah with no problems, and the atmosphere was quite tranquil. Each family is going to have to make its own decision.

Atlanta, Ga.: Will a larger political role for women in Saudi society impact the curriculum of the schools in the near future?

Thomas W. Lippman: Probably, but I don't know for sure -- I have never been able to get a good handle on what really happens in ordinary Saudi classrooms. More and more women are educated now, and they naturally want the best for their children; but, sometimes that results in circumventing the school system rather than trying to reform it. In the Eastern Province around the oil fields, for example, quite a few women send their children to school in Bahrain, where the environment is less oppressive. And, there is a growing number of private schools in Saudi Arabia.

Raleigh, N.C.: Among the Saudi Arabian general population, have you noticed increasing hostility toward Americans, Westerners or foreigners in general?

Thomas W. Lippman: Hard not to notice when it's in the newspapers and on TV every day. But hostility is not the same as violence. Most Saudis are not violent people.

Herndon, Va.: Mr. Lippman: With all due respect, I remember the "experts" before the collapse of the Soviet Union saying "well, some time in the distant future, there'll be major changes, but not right away." Then, WHAM, and the whole system collapsed. Why is the House of Saud any different?

Thomas W. Lippman: Maybe it's not. But the Soviet system was -- we learned afterward -- a sham, a hollow power with a bankrupt ideology. I'm not convinced that Saudi Arabia is in the same category.

Victoria, B.C., Canada: What is your take on the recent poll of Saudis which showed massive majority support and sympathy for the ideas of bin Laden? How can the House of Saud prevail over the terrorists when the terrorists have the support of the mass of people? The poll was taken after the bombings in Riyadh.

Thomas W. Lippman: Very good question, and very difficult to answer. Here's one way to think about it: On my recent visit to Saudi Arabia, and on all previous visits over more than 25 years, I have been graciously and hospitably received by Saudis who have welcomed me into their homes and shared their food and their thoughts with me. Always, they have stressed that they like Americans and admire what the United States has stood for -- except .. and then we begin to hear the other side. As Arabs the Saudis have resented what they regard as undiscriminating and unfair U.S. support for Israel, no matter what. They have chafed at the global market power and global military power of the United States. They deeply resented the presence of 500,000 U.S. troops in their country during Desert Storm. They are unhappy that it is now so difficult to obtain visas to the United States, even to visit their own property. And, they can't stand what the United States is doing in Iraq. Add it all up, and you can see how a radical such as bin Laden might exert a certain crude appeal -- much as Hitler did during the late 1920s. Let's hope the Saudis can maintain a distinction between anger at U.S. policies and embracing the vision of bin Laden.

Alexandria, Va.: We constantly hear about either the monarchy or the terrorists in Saudi Arabia. What about those in the middle, the all important moderate, middle class? Do they exist, and if so what do you see as their responsibility both in Saudi and the rest of the Muslim world?

Thomas W. Lippman: There is indeed a large, mostly moderate, nonviolent middle class in Saudi Arabia: business people, civil servants, bankers, agribusiness executives, and media people. That's the main reason why I believe that the population does not want the Taliban-style regime that would be imposed by bin Laden and his supporters. But, keep in mind that the Saudis are deeply religious Muslims, and Islam is the foundation of the state, which is how they want it. There's not much constituency for secular democracy.

Harrisburg, Pa.: In this political climate, there are discussions about the ties of the Bush family to the Saudi government. Are you aware of these ties and, if so, what is the truth to these ties?

Thomas W. Lippman: This question comes up all the time. Apparently it's one of the main subjects of Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11. It was the subject of an entire book recently, House of Bush House of Saud. It's not surprising that a family that made its money in the oil business in Texas would be close to the Saudis; I'm not aware that any untoward relationship has been uncovered.

Las Vegas, Nev.: Is the House of Saud withdrawing support of religiously extreme schools at home and abroad?

Thomas W. Lippman: This is a very complicated question. At home, the Saudis say they are cleaning up the school curriculum and purging their textbooks of inflammatory material; I have no direct knowledge of whether that is true.

Overseas, it is a fact that Saudi donations to Muslim schools and charities are now much more tightly controlled, and the purpose of the funds is much more closely monitored, not just by the Saudis but by a joint U.S.-Saudi team. The problem as I understand it is that a lot of money controlled by Saudis is not in Saudi Arabia -- it's in Singapore or the Cayman Islands or wherever -- and thus not easy to restrain.

Grand Rapids, Mich.: What are the chances that Saudi Arabia will turn into something similar to Iran? It seems that this administration embraces the monarchy more any previous one in a way that is reminiscent of our relations with the Shah. Is there a sense that the population of Saudi Arabia is frustrated with the monarchy and their hold on power?

Thomas W. Lippman: Let me try this one more time. Go to the blackboard and write 100 times, Saudi Arabia is not Iran. They straddle the Persian Gulf and produce oil; otherwise, they have little in common. Iran is a Shiite state; the Saudis are Sunnis. The Shah of Iran was widely perceived by his people to be an illegitimate ruler -- an usurper installed on his throne by the CIA and a virtual pagan in religious affairs. The obscenely lavish international party he threw at Persepolis, which appalled the world with its extravagance, convinced Iranians that he valued pre-Islamic, Persian culture more than he valued Islam. And, he was a good friend to Israel. None of those considerations applies to the House of Saud. It can't be stated as a fact that the Saudi majority is "frustrated with the monarch and their hold on power." Even the most vocal dissidents in the Kingdom are calling for reform within the system, not abolition of the system.

Silver Spring, Md.: I have heard that there is a strong sentiment among the "average Saudi" that they would rather not have foreign workers present in their country. That perhaps this would help with their problems with unemployment. Does this lead to latent acceptance of attacks against foreigners by the average Saudi citizen?

Thomas W. Lippman: The presence of foreign workers has been an issue in Saudi Arabia for almost 70 years. Here's one way to think about it: Imagine that all the Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in California left the state overnight. Who would do all the work they do? Saudi Arabia is similarly dependent on foreign workers. Of course, you are correct that the Saudis would be better off if they had fewer foreign workers and did more of the jobs themselves -- everyone in the Kingdom acknowledges this -- but, there is a disconnect between the Saudi labor force and the job market. Some jobs the Saudis just won't do -- cleaning hotel rooms, for example, or heavy construction out in that heat. And, some jobs they would do, they aren't qualified to do, especially if the jobs require foreign languages, engineering skills or computer literacy.

Oxnard, Calif.: Are we better off to continue to embrace the "devil we know" rather than hope for their overthrow and face perhaps a much more fervently anti-American leadership in Saudi Arabia?

Thomas W. Lippman: The phrasing of your question is intriguing. You say we might fact "a much more fervently anti-American leadership in Saudi Arabia." Are you implying, or do you believe, that the current leadership is anti-American? If so, I believe you are mistaken. The main reason the House of Saud is under attack by Islamic terrorists is that it is pro-American.

Washington, D.C.: It is often asserted that if real direct elections were held in Saudi Arabia (or any other authoritarian Middle East county) the Islamic extremists would win.

If there was an election for the leader Saudi Arabia today, would the winners be more hostile to the United States? If so, how much more, are we talking a level of hostility similar to that found in Iran or even in Afghanistan under the Taliban (terrorist-training camps and sanctuary)?

Thomas W. Lippman: The example I have heard most often is Algeria, where an Islamist slate appeared to win elections in 1994. I think you would get a government that would be strongly anti-American in rhetoric but less so in practice because of the deep, durable economic ties between the two countries. I just don't believe that the people of Saudi Arabia want a Taliban-style regime.