U.S. May Reshape Ties With Saudis

After missteps and recriminations following the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the United States and Saudi Arabia appear to have repaired their alliance and are cooperating well in the war on terrorism, officials in both governments say.

But over the long run, senior Bush administration officials say, the two countries’ relationship is probably headed for more changes--including a possible decrease in U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia.

“I think a recalibration is in order,” a senior State Department official said this week, speaking on condition that he not be named. “We can have conversations, and we should,” about where the relationship goes from here, he said.

For starters, he suggested, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, where about 5,000 troops have been stationed since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, should probably be reduced.

The troops’ presence in the midst of a conservative Muslim society has been an irritant to many Saudis--and a rallying cry for terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, a member of a wealthy Saudi family.

“It probably is right to look at lowering that military profile,” the official said. He said the issue is not yet being seriously discussed between the two governments but added, “It will once this is over,” referring to the war in Afghanistan.

A few weeks ago, talk of reducing U.S. troops in the Saudi kingdom might have fed talk of a broader estrangement between the two governments.

In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, mid-level officials in the FBI and Defense Department complained that the Saudis weren’t cooperating with U.S. efforts to pursue terrorists. Members of Congress charged that the Saudis were playing what Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called “a double game,” tolerating Islamic extremists as long as their targets were outside the kingdom.

And the Saudis, stung, lashed back. Crown Prince Abdullah, the kingdom’s de facto ruler, accused the “Western media” of a “ferocious campaign . . . [of] hatred toward the Islamic system.” Other officials grumbled about an “anti-Saudi campaign” led by backers of Israel’s hawkish prime minister, Ariel Sharon.

Today, after a flurry of conciliation from both sides, that sudden storm has passed. “Saudi Arabia has been helpful across the board,” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said last week of the kingdom’s cooperation in the war on terrorism.

“If you talk to both governments, they will tell you that the relationship is as solid as it ever was,” Prince Saud al Faisal, the kingdom’s foreign minister, said in an interview during a visit to Washington. “I know for sure that it is the intent of the terrorists to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and the United States . . . but the relationship is too precious to allow that to happen.”

Any discussion of reducing the U.S. troop presence, officials said, should be seen as part of a long-term evolution in the relationship, not a product of any short-term misunderstandings.

The United States did not station a significant number of troops in Saudi Arabia before 1990, when Iraq’s Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened to seize Saudi oil fields as well. After the Gulf War, the United States intended to withdraw almost all of its troops, but about 5,000 stayed behind because of a continued threat from Iraq.

Now, however, some U.S. officials believe that the threat from Iraq can be kept under control with a smaller troop presence, at least in Saudi Arabia.

The issue of U.S. troops reflects a long-standing discomfort at the center of the U.S.-Saudi relationship: The two countries, far from being natural allies, are about as different as human societies can be. One is a conservative Muslim kingdom where women are not allowed to drive, the other a freewheeling multicultural democracy where women are encouraged to compete.

Yet each country believes that it needs the other. The United States wants Saudi Arabia, the most powerful player in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, to help keep the price of oil stable. Saudi Arabia wants the United States to defend it against militarily stronger neighbors such as Iraq and Iran.

For decades, the two sides agreed on an arm’s-length alliance: The United States defended Saudi Arabia from “over the horizon,” without stationing significant numbers of troops in the kingdom, and the Saudis restrained the price of OPEC oil because they saw stability to be in their own economic interest as well.

The Sept. 11 attacks put that odd-couple relationship under a spotlight--and neither side much liked what it saw.

Americans were shocked to learn that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi citizens, that Bin Laden had raised money in the kingdom and that Saudi cooperation in the war on terrorism came only slowly. Saudis bristled at the criticism, were shocked to find themselves subject to suspicion at U.S. airports and worried about anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States.

Major Complaints Were Unfounded

In the weeks since, much of the early friction has abated. Charges that the Saudis would not allow the United States to use Prince Sultan Air Base as a command center turned out to be unfounded; the Saudis, characteristically, just hoped to avoid publicizing the base’s importance.

And complaints that Saudis weren’t cooperating with FBI and CIA efforts to track the terrorists turned out to be a combination of mid-level dismay at the Saudis’ slow pace and the Saudis’ resistance to FBI requests for the right to interrogate suspects and their relatives directly.

“They have been given every ounce of information that we have,” Saud said. “If we were going to question some Americans here, would the FBI not say, ‘Well, tell us what the questions are and we will question them and let you have the information?’

“This is not an extraordinary circumstance; this is an issue of sovereignty,” he said. “These are Saudi citizens, and they have to be protected under the laws of Saudi Arabia.”

An FBI spokesman who asked not to be identified said the Saudis are cooperating with the bureau, although agents would still prefer more direct access to witnesses.

Even before Sept. 11, however, the U.S.-Saudi relationship was fraying over policies toward Iraq and Israel.

Last spring, Saudi officials, upset that they weren’t being consulted before the U.S. launched bombing raids against Iraq, banned any further airstrikes from Saudi bases, former officials said.

And all year long, Abdullah has complained that the Bush administration wasn’t putting enough pressure on Israel’s Sharon to stop his crackdown on Palestinian guerrillas. Abdullah scrubbed a planned visit to Washington and wrote a toughly worded letter to President Bush warning that the issue was pushing U.S.-Saudi relationship toward a crossroads, officials said.

Last week, the U.S. took two significant steps in the Saudis’ direction. Bush said, for the first time, that U.S. policy in Israel aims to create an independent state called “Palestine.” And Secretary of State Colin L. Powell announced a new effort to get the Israeli-Palestinian peace process back on track, led by retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a favorite of the Saudis.

Administration officials said they took those steps for the sake of peace, not to mollify the Saudis.

In the long run, however, both sides expect new problems to arise. Saudi Arabia is going through wrenching economic changes: Its oil revenue is plummeting as its population soars.

That could feed public resentment of the Saudi royal family--and the U.S. government that has supported it.

*

Times staff writers Eric Lichtblau and Robin Wright contributed to this report.