If there were a large-scale rebellion in Saudi Arabia...

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

FTR I'm not a supporter of Assad or of the House of Saud (or the actual rebels in the former/hypothetical rebels in the latter), but it seems rather clear that western motivation for backing the FSA is backed more by geopolitics than human rights (see: Obama's tacit support of the Bahraini government's crushing of protests in its country).

Of course, the Russians/Chinese/Iranians have the same cynical motivation in supporting Assad.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Of course we will support the Sauds, no matter what.

[Ban my account ffs!]

We'll back the Sauds... but our relations with them have cooled since we're pumping more of our own oil and are not relying on them so much anymore.

Good riddance.

[Famous Mortimer]

Our backing for the rebels in both Libya and Syria is absolutely based primarily on human rights.

If it was purely geopolitical, Assad and Gadaffi could have both easily been bought off, and, in fact, basically already had been.

However, if the rebels are almost exclusively Islamists, as is the case in both Bahrain and hypothetically Saudi Arabia, that overrides human rights concerns.

With Libya and Syria there's a least a significant minority of rebels that are relatively secular and at least some hope that a rebel led government wouldn't be worse on human rights than the one its replacing.

There is no such hope in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.

[Zioneer]

Our backing for the rebels in both Libya and Syria is absolutely based primarily on human rights.

If it was purely geopolitical, Assad and Gadaffi could have both easily been bought off, and, in fact, basically already had been.

However, if the rebels are almost exclusively Islamists, as is the case in both Bahrain and hypothetically Saudi Arabia, that overrides human rights concerns.

With Libya and Syria there's a least a significant minority of rebels that are relatively secular and at least some hope that a rebel led government wouldn't be worse on human rights than the one its replacing.

There is no such hope in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.

The Saudi government is pretty Islamist itself; aren't they the ones funding all those Salafist mosques?

[Redalgo]

The Saudi government is pretty Islamist itself; aren't they the ones funding all those Salafist mosques?

Unfortunately, that is not as important to the U.S. government as it is to you or I - nor have such concerns been going back at least to the Cold War. When it comes to diplomatic goals outside the First World, the U.S. has no reluctance to cozy up to authoritarian regimes and human rights violators so long as their leading elites are either pro-American or unaligned with its geopolitical rivals (i.e. so long as cultivating relationships with them seems likely to advance U.S. national interests). In spite of his oft idealistic rhetoric, President Obama does not appear ready to put internationalist or humanist principles before practical considerations - considerations that urge adherence to the status-quo for U.S. foreign policy.

The Saud family would have to do some pretty horrific and broadly condemned things to rebels, and the rebels themselves would need to be obviously, widely recognized as, and exceptionally FF'esque for the Obama administration to be pressured into turning against the House of Saud. Hopefully I am just being a bit too cynical though; I'd love to be proven wrong on this matter.

[Beet]

If a large scale revolt breaks out in Saudi Arabia, the government will just drop money out of helicopters and the protestors will promptly return to their homes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If a large scale revolt breaks out in Saudi Arabia, the government will just drop money out of helicopters and the protestors will promptly return to their homes.

Very true.  The only possibilities for even small scale rebellion in the near future would be an Al-Qaida backed jihadist insurgency out of Yemen or an Iranian backed Shiite insurgency in the Eastern Province.

[Deus Naturae]

The Saud family would have to do some pretty horrific and broadly condemned things to rebels, and the rebels themselves would need to be obviously, widely recognized as, and exceptionally FF'esque for the Obama administration to be pressured into turning against the House of Saud.

[Leftbehind]

Voted yes without properly reading the question, apologies.

[Peter the Lefty]

We'll probably take the standard "we condemn the crackdown and the use of violence on both sides and we hope there can be a peaceful settlement" line while still backing the regime financially.

[© tweed]

Saud so long as it looked like they would hold on (while affirming the rebels' "yearning for democracy").  then if the tide turns, move to public support for the rebels whilst supporting the most reactionary elements of the rebel cause and attempt to reconstruct the most important aspects of the old regime within that.  

it's bread and butter stuff out of the US foreign policy playbook, not very complicated.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The Obama administration would be very "concerned" and continue to closely monitor the situation as it develops.... and ultimately back the side who seems to gain the upper hand.