Clarksville, Tenn.: I don't understand why the United States hasn't gotten serious about alternative fuel sources. Surely if there were ever a time to get serious we have reached that time. There was some guy on TV the other day saying the United States will always be dependent on Middle Eastern oil. He sounded like man from the 18th-century proclaiming the United States will always need buggy whips? The sad part is no one seriously contested what he said.

Rachel Bronson: Focusing on alternative fuel sources would be very useful regardless of the politics of Saudi Arabia. The truth is that per capita use of petroleum has decreased since the oil crises of 1973 and 1979. The real problem isn't just what the United States consumes, but what others consume as well. China and India are expected to dramatically increase their demand. U.S. interest in Saudi oil has always had more to do with the global economy than what it itself consumes. Saudi Arabia is an important importer of petroleum to the United States, but so is Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Since the United States depends on the global economy, it matters what happens in China and India.

That being said, I do agree, now would be a useful moment for our politicians to be advertising carrots and sticks available to conserve even more and explore other energy options.

New York, N.Y.: It would seem that the Saudi government, which is among the world's most repressive and which has allowed radical Islam to dominate its mosques and schools, is part of the problem, not the solution. Your thoughts? Is there any indication that the Bush Administration grasps this, or will it continue to be business as usual?

Rachel Bronson: The Bush Administration's position seems to be that the Saudi government is doing a lot to fight terrorism and can do even more. Since May 2003, Saudi Arabia turned a corner and began to aggressively go after some of the areas of concern. For instance, it's rounded up about 2,000 of the most radical clerics and dismissed them, or put them through "re-education" programs. An international group that carefully moderns laws regarding money laundering and terrorist financing have come back with a recent report saying that Saudi Arabia is complying with most international laws regarding financing. In addition, Saudi Arabia itself has closed down some of its most visible charities (i.e., al Haramain) and made it illegal for charities to fund outside the Kingdom. In addition, they are cooperating with the FBI and CIA to a greater extent than ever before. These are the kind of things that the Bush Administration wants to see. They still have a ways to go, but this is why word out of the Administration has been generally positive.

Wheaton, Md.: Is it still the official position of the Saudi government that Israel should be destroyed?

Rachel Bronson: No.

Crown Prince Abdullah has called for the recognition of Israel if Israel returns to 1967 borders. His ideas were translated into an Arab League position, which also said that all refugees have to return (although the Crown Prince notably did not say that originally). This in some ways repeats a Saudi position called the Fahd Plan from early 1981.

So, it's not official policy that Israel should be destroyed.

That doesn't mean that some important Saudis don't think it should be, but it's not official policy. Also, Saudi Arabian princes have raised large sums of money for the Palestinians often funneling it towards radical groups.

Philadelphia, Pa.: What's with senior Saudi officials blaming al Qaeda problems on "Zionists?" Is this merely for internal consumption, or do they actually believe it? And, why don't U.S. officials publicly rebuke the Saudis when they make these claims?

Rachel Bronson: It is incredibly frustrating.

Either they're just repeating an old mantra that they think has served them well over the years. Or, I think more likely, they're trying to shift the discussion. What you're seeing now from key leaders like Prince Naif is this notion that the problem with the United States isn't a larger general problem but a more limited disagreement with the United States over Palestine and Israel. This then becomes an answer to their domestic audience of why they can work with the United States on terrorism (i.e., collaborate with CIA and FBI).

Whatever the justification, the logic is so contorted that it's hard to make sense of it.

Washington, D.C.: What has stopped the U.S. government from going to war with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

Rachel Bronson: Well, our recent foray into Iraq doesn't lead many in Washington to believe we'd be able to easily craft something better.

Saudi Arabia was instrumental in our success in Iraq. The war was largely run out of Saudi Arabia, and when Turkey rebuffed the United States, Saudi Arabia picked up a lot of the slack. So, it's been quite helpful there.

The Saudi government has cracked down on terrorist financing.

Who would we replace the royal family with? For all its problems, the royal family is seen as leading reform, not preventing it. Saudi Arabia has a very conservative society and it's not clear that removing the House of Saud would get us a more enlightened democratic government that works well with the United States.

War in the Kingdom would send oil prices through the roof.

These are only some of the reasons the idea probably hasn't gotten much serious thought.

Texas: How big a problem will it be if a large part of the western expatriate community decides to leave Saudi Arabia? (Many of them must surely be near the end of their ropes .. ) Will the Saudis' ability to pump oil be affected?

Rachel Bronson: It will have very serious consequences.

First and foremost, Saudi Arabia is in desperate need of investment -- this includes foreign direct investment and the bringing home of hundreds of billions of Saudi money invested outside the Kingdom. With a GDP of $8,800 (poor little Oman's is $8,100), this investment is needed. An exodus by the expats will be a clear signal that it's not safe to invest in Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince's reform agenda will go out the window, and Saudi Arabia's economic situation will further spiral.

Also, if expats left in great number, it may or may not have an impact on day-to-day operations (I've heard both sides argued by people who should know), but it will have an impact on longer-term development, which is equally important.

Harrisburg, Pa.: The Saudi government has helped fight terrorism, yet, at the same time, don't they also wish to reach out to elements of the Saudi public that support the terrorists' objectives? How is the Saudi government doing at keeping this balancing act from toppling?

Rachel Bronson: For the Saudi Arabian leadership, the two go hand-in-hand. They've been aggressively hunting down al-Qaeda cells over the past 14 months; at the same time, they've adopted a strategy of trying to co-opt those in the prisons to adopt a less radical approach and are using different religious leaders to argue that al-Qaeda is against Islamic precepts. Leaders who, in the 1990s were banned from preaching in Saudi Arabia, are now back in the government's favor because they've moderated their beliefs and language.

The King, and the Crown Prince, offer a bargain: you reform, and there's a place for you; stay the radical course, and you'll follow the fate of Abdul Aziz al-Muqrin.

The problem is sometimes this strategy doesn't work. Al-Muqrin was in a Saudi jail and set free because the authorities thought he had moderated his ways.

Washington, D.C.: I do not understand after all that has transpired in the Middle East, why so many Americans (30 million reported) still live and work in that region. Why aren't they taking the warning to leave seriously? The money they are making over there cannot be more important than their lives or the well being of their families.

Why hasn't the president been more proactive in trying to find and save these men's lives? Three brutal and barbaric executions have been carried out. What more needs to happen before the United States will do something? It's almost like WWII .. it took Pearl Harbor to happen to wake the "Sleeping Giant."

Rachel Bronson: The United States is working very closely with the Saudi Arabian government to try to roll up al-Qaeda cells. Even in the most recent case of Paul Johnson, the CIA and FBI were in close cooperation with Saudi forces. This is almost unprecedented. In 1995 and then in 1996 when there were terrorist attacks in the Kingdom, the Saudi government made it very difficult for Americans to try to figure out what happened. This is no longer true; there's a stronger working relationship.

Last week, Prince Naif also mentioned, in a speech in the Kingdom, that U.S. intelligence help would be accepted. This is very new for him certainly.

There's also been a lot of technical assistance, and I'd imagine more is coming.

As to why the 30 million are still there -- until recently, it probably felt that these were limited instances of violence. For people who've made their homes there, it's probably quite hard to leave. But, what is for certain is that people are leaving, or if they were planning to leave for the summer, it's unclear if they will come back. Companies are shifting their headquarters to elsewhere in the Gulf, and many Americans who were planning to go have cancelled their trips.

Texas: In an earlier reply, you implied that the Saudi government is basically more progressive than the people it rules. That's pretty damn scary. Care to elaborate a little?

Also, I read that bin Laden and al Qaeda have significant support among ordinary Saudis? True? How much support?

Sorry to sound alarmist, but when I read things like this -- I have to wonder if maybe we really are headed for a war of civilizations (if we're not there already). What do you think?

Rachel Bronson: Different polls have shown different things. Some show that support for bin Laden's ideas are high; others show they're declining. One recent poll had the interesting finding that while almost half the population supported bin Laden's ideas, only 4% wanted a government inspired by him.

On my previous answer, given the Saudi political landscape, certain members of the royal family tend to be viewed as the reformists. That is, reformists in society line up behind them because they are viewed as the answer. The National Dialogues that we've been witnessing (debates over reform and Saudi identity) were sponsored by the Crown Prince. However, there are some who are clearly even more reform minded. Recently, a group of people called for Saudi Arabia to become a constitutional monarchy, and they were thrown in jail for a short period.

Austin, Tex.: Did somebody mistype a number? Thirty million Americans living in the Gulf? Ten percent of the nation's population? (I'm not nitpicking. I would actually like to know the real number. Three million?)

Rachel Bronson: The correct answer is 30,000 -- my mistake. Thank you. The population of Saudi Arabia is estimated at about 23 million, with about 5 million being non-Saudi.

Alexandria, Va.: I find it extremely suspicious that Saudi security could never find and deal with Muqrin. Then hours after Paul Johnson is beheaded, Saudi security tracks him down and kills him.

Did someone give him up or is the House of Saud as duplicitous as I think?

Rachel Bronson: It seems that if Saudi Arabia could have gotten al-Muqrin before, they would have. He's responsible for many of the bombings that have put Saudi once again under the international spotlight and are causing the expat community to consider leaving.

More likely, they could have gotten a tip. After all, a massive dragnet was under way, and information was bound to turn up.

Or, and this is pure speculation, but I'll share it -- they, the Saudi government, could have had a go-between negotiating with al-Muqrin. It may have been clear that if he was taken in, the order would have been given to execute Johnson. As long as he was alive, they might have believed they could negotiate Johnson's release. As soon as he was executed they went and got him.

We'll have to wait for more details to emerge to know.

Ottawa, Canada: Do we feel that within the Saudi royal family there are present both reformers and those who favor the status quo? And, is this internal struggle the main problem facing those in the West who have to deal with the Saudis?

Rachel Bronson: There are three ways to look at what's going on.

One, is that there's a split in the royal family. Michael Doran argued this in a recent addition of Foreign Affairs.

Two, there is a split within each member of the royal family -- a recognition of the need to reform but a concern that moving too fast will upset the apple cart. Professor Greg Gause argued this in response to Mike's piece in the next Foreign Affairs edition.

A third way is a bureaucratic politics explanation, the one I favor. Crown Prince Abdullah, because he is the Crown Prince and now basically in charge of Saudi Arabia's foreign policy, sees what needs to be done to integrate Saudi Arabia into the global community. Prince Naif, the Interior Minister, who has to deal with the mess if the Crown Prince moves too fast, is much more reticent and perhaps willing to cut more deals with the extremists. I see it this way because when Crown Prince Abdullah was only the head of the National Guard (performing an internal functions) he seemed to be more anti-American and more willing to cut deals.

However, what is true, is that after the recent spate of attacks, the royal family all seems to be singing more from the same page than before, recognizing that this is first and foremost an attack against them.

Burlington, Vt.: Good afternoon.

How can the United States continue to rely on advice on policy towards Saudi Arabia from ex-diplomats and State Department folks who are given cushy retirement lives with Saudi money? Have the Saudis bought off too many American stakeholders for us ever to give them impartial advice?

Rachel Bronson: After an enormous onslaught of negative stories on Saudi Arabia, it's hard to see the evidence of Saudi Arabia buying everyone off. I think many in the diplomatic community are more careful in their interpretations because they've lived there and know how many changes have occurred and also understand how complicated all of this is.

New York, N.Y.: What do you think about terrorist allegations that the murderers who kidnapped and beheaded Paul Johnson were helped by the Saudi police? Is there any likelihood this could be true and could that explain how the terrorists were themselves killed so quickly afterwards (to shut them up)?

Rachel Bronson: There is a question of to what extent has al-Qaeda infiltrated the Saudi royal forces. It's certainly a question that the leadership is concerned with, and I don't think has a good answer for. In my view, recent events suggest a degree of incompetence or complicity, but I drew that conclusion more from the hostage situation at al-Khobar than this recent one. There seemed to be a full court press to spring Paul Johnson. The Saudis have spent considerable time and money protecting their oil infrastructure. They've given less attention to these kind of attacks.

Washington, D.C.: Why does the United States tolerate the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia?

Rachel Bronson: The United States tolerates dictatorship in many places.

Why does it work so closely with Saudi Arabia? It seems they're cracking down on terrorist financing, working closely with the United States to round up local terrorists, were helpful in the war in Iraq, proved to be a reliable source of energy when the Venezuela strikes happened just before the war, and more recently when they offered to put more oil onto the market in response to high prices, etc.

Washington, D.C.: Rachel, could you explain why the State Department suggests Americans leave Saudi Arabia, but a few days ago, Secretary Powell said that Americans shouldn't leave? It seems rather contradictory.

Rachel Bronson: No, I really can't. It seems quite muddled.

Indianapolis, Ind.: I don't understand why evidence connecting al Qaeda to Iraq should be more compelling than evidence connecting al Qaeda to Saudi Arabia. I'm just a citizen, so I have no clue what the correct response to these connections should be; but, it seems the concern of our national leaders about suspected terrorist activity in Iraq prior to our invasion seems out of proportion to our understanding of terrorist activity in Saudi Arabia. Do you have an opinion on this?

Rachel Bronson: I always thought the Iraq-terrorism link to be the weakest argument for going to war, and the recent 9/11 commission staff report backs up that view. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was the overriding reason. After that, there were a host of other efforts. I think they're holding on so hard to the al-Qaeda-Iraq connection because WMD didn't pan out and the post war environment is so violent.

Rachel Bronson: Thanks for your questions.