Whose side are Saudis on?

? The revelation that checks written by the wife of the Saudi ambassador might have helped fund the Sept. 11 hijackers shines an unwelcome light on the U.S-Saudi relationship. What kind of relationship is this? Are the Saudis a key American ally, or are they working to undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East?

It is unlikely that Princess Haifa bint Faisal knowingly funneled money to the hijackers, but the high-level money trail is a symptom of a larger problem, and that’s the double game played by the Saudi royal family. The Saudis cozy up to each successive American administration, delivering a steady supply of oil in return for assurances that the U.S. military will protect the Saudi oil fields should the need arise. At the same time, the Saudi government allows radical Islamic, anti-American hate to spread unchecked throughout its system of religious schools.

This love-hate relationship with the United States serves Saudi interests, and if Sept. 11 hadn’t happened, the story would end there. But it was no accident that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. The desert kingdom has turned out to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi by birth, must be smiling somewhere. The goal of his terror campaign is the overthrow of the royal family. The mounting distrust between the United States and Saudi Arabia is a first step toward the destabilization he seeks.

Reports about the princess backing the terrorists, even if she did so unknowingly, come at a terrible time for the administration. With a possible invasion of Iraq looming, use of Saudi air bases is essential to military success. The royal family has reluctantly agreed to the Pentagon’s request. But every move toward the Western infidels provokes deep anger and resentment from the Islamic fundamentalists.

The Bush administration has longstanding ties with the Saudi royal family, both professionally and personally. Prince Bandar has represented the Saudi government in Washington since the Nixon administration. A charismatic figure who enjoys a good cigar when he’s away from the watchful eye of his country’s religious leaders, Bandar has forged such a close bond with the Bushes that they dubbed him “Prince Bandar Bush” after he shared a Thanksgiving dinner with the family at Kennebunkport.

Former President Bush became a revered figure in the eyes of the Saudis after his administration successfully ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait in 1991 and sanctioned U.S. troops to remain in the area to provide ongoing protection. After Bush left office, key figures from his administration, including Dick Cheney, found the Saudi kingdom a promising source for lucrative business deals.

After Sept. 11, the Bush administration resisted the creation of a blue-ribbon commission to look into the intelligence failures that led to the terrorist attacks. Supporters of the commission finally prevailed, but the White House held out until after the November election to draw tight guidelines about what the commission can pursue.

The royal family’s legitimacy as a government comes from their assertion that they represent the true faith and are the guardians of Mecca. Their association with the United States undermines that legitimacy. If the Saudis cut off the money flow from wealthy Saudis to Islamic charities believed to be the core funders of al-Qaida and other radical movements, they risk a backlash that could threaten their survival.

The truth about the U.S.-Saudi relationship is not pretty. American governments have looked the other way as the Saudi royal family represses its people :quot; especially women :quot; and supports radical Islamic groups. Reliance on Saudi oil has been uppermost in the minds of the policy makers.

Prediction: Saudi autocracy and repression are out of step with the modern age. A more democratic government is certain to take hold there. The only question is whether or not the United States is perceived to be on the side of democratic revolutionaries or the House of Saud.


:quot; Political Correspondent Eleanor Clift contributed to this column.