Bomb Unlikely to Shake U.S.-Saudi Alliance Built on Oil and Security : Diplomacy: Mutual dependency unites democratic world leader, authoritarian monarchy.

Just weeks before his death in 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt played host to Saudi King Abdulaziz ibn Saud, founder of the modern Saudi dynasty, aboard a U.S. warship in the Suez Canal to discuss the Middle East’s budding problems.

The two leaders were so taken with each other during the first U.S.-Saudi summit that Roosevelt gave the aging warrior-king his own wheelchair.

Half a century later, the economies and security of the two countries are so deeply entwined that 100 bombs like the one that exploded Monday at a U.S.-run training center for the Saudi Arabian national guard--killing five Americans--could not drive a serious wedge between them, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

Indeed, U.S.-Saudi ties are more likely to strengthen as dangers to the desert kingdom mount.

“We have developed a remarkably effective alliance which has proven itself again and again in times of trouble,” a senior Pentagon official said. “We will overcome this bombing together too.”

The United States and Saudi Arabia are the strangest of bedfellows: a democratic world leader and an authoritarian monarchy that ranks as the most fundamentalist regime in the Muslim world.

The kingdom officially disdains a culture that produces Madonna, Beavis and Butt-head and Howard Stern. And Washington finds itself in the awkward position of defending a government that denies women the right to drive, denies all people the right to vote and chops off the hands of thieves.

The relationship isn’t even always polite. During a recent visit to Riyadh, Secretary of State Warren Christopher was kept waiting five hours by King Fahd. CIA Director John M. Deutch and others have been similarly treated. The kingdom would also prefer that Americans on Saudi soil not mix with its people.

And although U.S. officials regularly call on the House of Saud, the royal family rarely pays high-level calls on Washington. This fall, Prince Sultan ibn Abdulaziz, defense minister and second in line to the throne, became the highest-ranking official to visit in nearly eight years.

Affection and courtesy aside, however, the relationship has grown over the years because of mutual dependency. “As cultures, we couldn’t be further apart,” the Pentagon official said. “But as economic and security partners, we are as close as you can get.”

The foundation of the relationship is oil, first discovered in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s by Standard Oil of California. Today, the United States is the world’s largest oil consumer and Saudi Arabia the largest exporter.

U.S. officials admit that the relationship would be far different if the kingdom were still just a union of warring desert tribes forced together by Ibn Saud under the banner of strict Islam. The two states didn’t have diplomatic relations until oil was struck.

Oil has often given the Saudis an edge in the relationship. The most serious single economic blow suffered by the United States over the last 50 years was the 1973 Arab oil boycott and subsequent quadrupling of prices--a move engineered by former Saudi King Faisal.

But economic ties are now a two-way street. After the oil boom, Saudi Arabia invested tens of billions of petrodollars in stable Western countries and bought tens of billions in Western technology and consumer goods.

In recent years, Saudi Arabia has ranked around ninth among U.S. trading partners--exceptionally high considering its small population of 12 million Saudis and 5 million foreigners, according to the State Department. The kingdom has increased its investments in Asia in recent years, but its business is still an integral part of U.S. and other Western economies.

The kingdom is particularly critical to sustaining the U.S. military-industrial complex. Its orders have single-handedly kept some U.S. arms in production. In 1992, McDonnell-Douglas planned to stop producing F-15 combat fighter jets--until the kingdom ordered 72 of the planes.

Without big Saudi orders, the manufacturers of the M-1A1 tank and the Patriot air-defense system would be in serious financial trouble, Pentagon sources said.

The military sales are critical to the other leg of the relationship between the two nations--security.

President Harry S. Truman signed the first security agreement with King Ibn Saud in 1947. Although it remained top secret for nearly 40 years, that framework still defines the relationship.

“One of the basic policies of [the] United States . . . is unqualifiedly to support territorial integrity and political independence of Saudi Arabia,” the agreement said. It also pledged that Washington would take “energetic measures to ward off . . . aggression.”

By 1950, the two states had their first military aid pact. The negotiations led the king to pronounce that he considered the United States and Saudi Arabia to be “one state.”

Today, after buying more than $65 billion in U.S. arms, the kingdom is still dependent on the U.S. military as the ultimate line of defense. The kingdom is simply too vast with too many valuable targets and with too small a population to defend itself from serious threat.

That dependence is reflected in the steadily rising numbers of Americans deployed in the kingdom.

About 12,000 U.S. troops are normally stationed in the Persian Gulf region, including on 15 offshore ships. The Pentagon and Saudi Arabia refuse to release the number in Saudi Arabia, but unofficial estimates are of 5,000 Western troops, mainly American--up from 651 Americans in 1981.

Security issues extend beyond the two nations’ borders. When Congress blocked Ronald Reagan Administration arms shipments to Nicaragua’s Contra rebels, Saudi Arabia paid $30 million to supply weapons. Joint U.S.-Saudi support of Afghanistan’s moujahedeen rebels forced Moscow to withdraw and contributed to the collapse of communism.

Not even the global wave of democratization has altered the relationship with Saudi Arabia, despite complaints from critics who charge that the United States has a double standard for Riyadh.

“There will always be an element of difference between us,” a State Department official said in response to the criticism. “We’re very different cultures and political systems, which is sometimes a source of tension.

“But given the [Persian Gulf] neighborhood and U.S. national interests, mutual interests have prevailed.”

Meanwhile, the death toll from the explosion in Riyadh rose to seven Tuesday when an Indian national employed at the U.S.-run facility died from his injuries, the Pentagon reported. In addition to the five Americans, a Filipino died Monday.

The Pentagon also released two more names of Americans killed: Army Sgt. 1st Class David K. Warrell, 34, and William Combs, 54, a civilian working for the Army. On Monday, it had identified Wayne Wiley, 55, a retired major, as among the dead. Six Americans remained in critical condition at hospitals in Riyadh, the Pentagon said.

So far there are no known Saudi deaths or casualties. Most Saudis normally near the bomb site were gone or at prayers. The 42 casualties have all been Americans or other foreigners.

An investigation by a joint U.S.-Saudi team has concluded that the bomb consisted of between 150 and 225 pounds of high-grade explosives. It is now believed to have gone off in a van that had free access to the parking lot next to the military installation. U.S. officials now concede that the building was extremely vulnerable to attack.

From Baghdad on Tuesday, a third group claimed responsibility. The Combatant Partisans of God, a previously unknown group, pledged to continue attacks against U.S. forces until they leave the kingdom. On Monday, two obscure Muslim fundamentalist groups had claimed responsibility.