US Nuclear Tech For Saudis

By Cernig

Oh dear. Congressman  Ed Markey (D. Mass.) has thrown the wingnuts a curve ball today by publicising a little known deal between the Bush administration and the Saudi government to aid that extremist nation with nuclear technology.

In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure.

Steve Clemons is probably correct that Markey's motives in this are muddy - in that he seems at least as interested in pushing his own hobby horse of solar power for domestic energy production as in exploring the issues of such a Saudi/US nuclear deal - he's done the nation a massive favor by exposing the holes in the Right's narrative on Iran's nuclear power program by comparison with a Saudi program. Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrisey writes:

When Russia announced its intention to help a Muslim country run by extremists build a nuclear-power system, the US demanded an end to it, proclaiming it a danger to world peace. When the US does the same thing, is it not just as much of a threat? Rep. Edward Markey wants to know how the Bush administration splits that particular hair before we start helping Saudi Arabia split atoms

Let's play Devils' Advocate. Among the Right's narratives newly up for debate today, in a refreshing "shoe on the other foot" way, are:

- the notion that seeking nuclear power or enrichment capbility are themselves somehow a contravention of NPT agreements. They simply aren't. At that point, complaining about any nation seeking such capability is really all about perceived intent - and the legality of perceived intent as a reason for action is standing on shaky footing nowadays. Whatever happened to "trust but verify"?

- that if a Muslim nation says it is only seeking peaceful nuclear power, not weapons, it should be utterly mistrusted by the West. As Ed Morrisey writes: "Even if the Saudis have the best of intentions, they have a big problem with radicals and extremists, some of whom have patrons in the royal family." What about possible future Saudi rulers? But the Bush administration's Secretary of Energy says "I presume that the president has a good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi Arabia."

- that oil-rich nations have no reason to seek nuclear power other than weapons production. The Saudis tried to buy nukes from Pakistan once, and already have the means of delivery in the shape of Russian intermediate range cruise missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. Clemons writes: "the Saudis want a non-weapons oriented nuclear energy industry not just for consumption needs but for science and building an engineering base in the country in one of the key energy sectors." There's also the whole matter of saving that black gold for revenue generation rather than burning it for power.

- that even so involvement in the Saudi nuclear program could ensure it isn't for weapons production. That, as Ed writes, "we can keep a closer eye on it from the inside than we can from the outside". If that's so, why not Iran's program too? And why not believe the Russians, who are involved in Iran's program, when they say it's entirely peaceable?

- The notion that the Saudis and other Arab nations want nuclear weapons as a counterweight to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Neither Iran nor the Saudis have nukes and in both cases the evidence is that they don't intend to get nukes. But if they were to do so, why is it that the threat they would be reacting to would be a so-far hypothetical one, rather than the very real one of Israel's nuclear arsenal? That's surely the multi-megaton elephant in the room.

- And finally, the last notion up for renewed debate is that the best way to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle east is for the US to find its indigenous own oil sources. Ed again:

It seems to me, though, that the best way to keep any of these countries from gaining nuclear weapons is to cut off their revenue streams.  If we started drilling for oil in the US and adopted the nuclear power that we want to give the Saudis, we could undercut the current pricing structure that makes these nations flush with cash.  Instead of relying on Middle Eastern resources, we could rely on our own, producing jobs and our own energy while the market crashes for OPEC.  That way, we don�t have to give nuclear power to Wahhabist extremists to use as a counterweight to Persian extremists.

Even supposing exploration began today and some Harry Potter of the oil industry could wave his magic wand and bring those sources onstream now instead of a decade from now, how would that help? Pakistan and North Korea went nuclear while still poor nations. Surely if political and strategic considerations were what mattered, not saving precious oil to sell instead of burning it, then a reduction in revenue flow would have exactly zero effect - possibly even a negative effect as the US would no longer be so engaged in the region. Ditto if the motive for pursuing nuclear power is technological  infrastructure. I know that right now every omen, from the Middle East to the direction geese fly, is interpreted by the Right as meaning we should drill in ANWR, but this is ridiculously flawed logic.

Update: Bush just punted the Iran nuclear football to the next president.

The United States and the European Union told Iran on Tuesday they were ready to impose more sanctions over its nuclear enrichment program.

But President George W. Bush acknowledged the limits of U.S. influence over Tehran and, in the twilight of his presidency, appeared resigned to leaving the standoff to his successor.

"I leave behind a multilateral framework to work on this issue," Bush said after a U.S.-EU summit at a Slovenian castle.

"A group of countries can send a clear message to the Iranians, and that is: We're going to continue to isolate you ... we'll find new sanctions if need be, if you continue to deny the just demands of the free world, which is to give up your enrichment program," he said.

He stopped short of repeating the U.S. position that all options, including military action, remain open. "Now is the time for there to be strong diplomacy," Bush said.

I wonder how many European leaders told him he was on his own if he attacked Iran's nuclear sites?

This, along with a Pentagon promise yesterday that US forces in Iraq wouldn't be used for attacking Iran, seems to suggest that Bush has given up any notion of exercising the military option before the end of his presdiency (nothing was said about using carriers or bombers from other Gulf bases, mind you) . That still leaves Israel, however, which as Jay McDonough noted yesterday, is trying hard to keep Bush alongside its own sabre-rattling. Any Israeli attack would at least need US forces in Iraq to step aside and give it free passage - which would be the same thing as active involvement as far as blowback would be concerned.