The Arab spring has become bloodier than we all hoped, but the autocrats are still losing ground. In Libya, opposition forces are pressing their slow advance. Meanwhile in Syria, president Bashar al-Assad continues his war against his own people but is looking progressively more isolated in the region.

Last week the UN Security Council condemned the violence, and at the weekend the Arab League followed suit. Then yesterday Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Damascus, and Turkey’s foreign minister visits today to “read the riot act” to the Syrians.

Even Russia, not usually very concerned about dealing with dictators, warned Assad last week he will face a “sad fate” unless he makes reforms and negotiates with the opposition.

The most surprisingly trenchant statement, however, came from Saudi Arabia’s king Abdullah, who condemned the “killing machine and bloodshed” and bluntly declared the situation in Syria was “not acceptable”. “Either it chooses wisdom on its own or it will be pulled down into the depths of turmoil and loss,” he vowed.

With Egypt distracted by its own rebirth process, leadership in the Arab world falls more and more to Saudi Arabia, easily the most repressive state still to be relatively untouched by protests. For the Saudis, siding with Arab rebels — first in Libya, now in Syria — is a dangerous game, but they evidently believe that they have little choice.

By moving quickly to cut loose those who, in his eyes, are giving autocracy a bad name, Abdullah no doubt hopes he can keep domestic discontent under control as well as ensure friendly relations with a future Syrian regime. But the spectacle of a Saudi monarch pushing for “reforms that are not merely promises but actual reforms” induces the sort of cognitive dissonance that must give encouragement to the kingdom’s opposition forces.

The Saudi strategy — which has so far been reasonably successful — depends on distinguishing between “good” autocrats who just keep their people in a state of peaceful subjection, and “bad” ones who massacre them with tanks. If revolt should break out in Saudi Arabia, however, there’s little doubt that the regime would be every bit as ruthless as Gaddafi and Assad have been.

Nor have the Saudis been reticent about the use of force to assist friendly regimes where it could get away with it — most obviously in Bahrain, where they helped crush opposition protests and are now trying to hammer out some sort of compromise.

How the Syrian drama plays out — and for that matter the Saudi drama to come — will depend mostly on the balance of forces within the region.

Western nations can (and should) apply some strategic pressure, but the military intervention in Libya is likely to remain the exception, not the rule. (The Syrian opposition has asked for moral support, but not armed assistance.)

And that’s probably just as well, because if you thought the west was conflicted in its response to Syria, given its long love-hate relationship with the Assads, that’s nothing compared to the consternation we’ll see in Washington if Saudi Arabia blows up.