[polemikos]

I think we support them out of fear of the alternative.
Kissinger's geo-economic analysis of the ME in the '70s failed miserably (his economics were always faulty, IMHO). Oil wealth has not brought them into the modern world. It has not created a sustainable middle class. Rather than a source of economic stability, the Saudis (by choice) have become an instrument of world instability. The scales have tilted away from the House of Saud. The question is now 'when' they will fall. Will it cause severe economic dislocations? In all likelihood. But not because they used their oil as a weapon. But rather because the oil will have been removed from their hands (and probably given to the Jordanians to administer.)

[Redcloak]

A more likely successor to the Saudi oil industry are the kingdom's eastern provinces. The people there are not Wahabi Muslims. (They're largely Shi'ites if I remember correctly.) The eastern provinces might be easily peeled away from Riyadh's control. If we can cause an uprising there, we could land the Saudis' oil reserves into the hands of people who are far more tolerant of the West, as are the other small gulf states. Even if new regimes are not pro-Western, we still strip the House of Saud of its income source and are no worse off.

[brat]

. "Kissinger's geo-economic analysis of the ME in the '70s failed miserably (his economics were always faulty, IMHO). Oil wealth has not brought them into the modern world. It has not created a sustainable middle class. Rather than a source of economic stability, the Saudis (by choice) have become an instrument of world instability."

And we're doing the same thing with China. Beware....thats one formidable enemy we're creating.