During a recent session of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Brad Sherman, a prominent Democrat from Los Angeles, raised alarm over the Trump administration’s nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. Comparing the situation to past US military support for the Shah of Iran, Sherman warned that facilitating Saudi nuclear capabilities could replicate historical missteps with potentially dire consequences.
Echoes of the Past
Sherman’s remarks come as the US navigates complex geopolitical waters, particularly in the Middle East. He expressed deep concerns regarding the implications of the Saudi nuclear deal, pointing out that many view the potential for nuclear technology in Saudi hands as harmless. “I’ve been involved in this for a long time,” he stated, recalling the era when the Shah of Iran was a staunch ally of the US and possessed significant military technology. “Thank God, nothing nuclear,” he added, referencing the precarious nature of power transitions in the region.
The congressman reminded attendees that the fallout from the 1979 Islamic revolution, which saw the Shah ousted and the mullahs rise to power, demonstrated how quickly alliances can shift. “Everything the Shah had in 1978 was in the mullahs’ hands in 1979,” he noted, underscoring the unpredictability of future leadership in Saudi Arabia.
Legislative Action and Oversight
Sherman’s call for greater Congressional oversight is not new. In 2018, he and former Senator Marco Rubio introduced the “No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act,” which sought to impose stricter conditions on any nuclear agreements with the kingdom. This act aimed to ensure that any civilian nuclear cooperation would require Congressional approval and that Saudi Arabia would conduct a thorough investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi—a crime linked to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Sherman insists that any nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia must meet the same stringent standards as the agreement reached with the United Arab Emirates in 2009. Under that agreement, the UAE committed to nonproliferation and agreed not to pursue domestic uranium enrichment or reprocessing.
Calls for Scrutiny
As the dialogue evolved, Sherman questioned the rationale behind the US’s approach to Iran, which has faced military threats over its nuclear ambitions, while simultaneously considering a deal with Saudi Arabia that lacks similar oversight. “Is there any reason we should be bombing Iran because they won’t agree to limit their nuclear program while telling Saudi Arabia we give them the green light?” he challenged Ambassador Mike Waltz, the US representative to the UN.
Waltz’s defence of the US stance on Iran drew criticism from Sherman, who highlighted the “great hypocrisy” in the contrasting treatment of the two nations. He pointed out that Saudi Arabia’s agreement appears to lack measures for transparency that would prevent the potential development of nuclear weapons.
Future Implications
Sherman concluded his statements by predicting that a resolution disapproving the Saudi nuclear agreement would be introduced in Congress, inviting other members to join him in advocating for stringent controls on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. His remarks hinted at the broader geopolitical implications of nuclear technology in the region, particularly in relation to Israel’s known nuclear capabilities.
Why it Matters
The debate surrounding the US-Saudi nuclear agreement is more than just a legislative issue; it is a critical examination of America’s role in global nuclear nonproliferation efforts. As nations grapple with the consequences of their alliances, the parallels drawn with historical events serve as a sobering reminder of the precarious nature of power dynamics in the Middle East. The outcome of this agreement could not only shape the future of US-Saudi relations but also have far-reaching effects on regional stability and international security.
