In a recent hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman raised alarm over the Trump administration’s nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. Drawing parallels to the United States’ past military support for the Shah of Iran, Sherman argued that facilitating Saudi access to nuclear technology could lead to significant geopolitical repercussions.
Echoes of the Past
During the session, Sherman, who represents Los Angeles, expressed his deep concerns about the implications of the nuclear deal. He remarked, “There are those who think that the Saudi possession of nuclear technology is totally benign, but I’ve been involved in this for a long time, and I remember when the most powerful monarch in the Middle East was a good friend of America.” He referenced the Shah of Iran, who received substantial military technology from the United States before the 1979 Islamic Revolution resulted in a regime that now poses various challenges to US interests in the region.
Sherman cautioned, “Everything the Shah had in 1978 was in the mullahs’ hands in 1979.” This observation underlined his argument that the future of Saudi leadership remains uncertain, raising questions about the long-term consequences of arming a nation with nuclear capabilities.
Legislative Efforts and Safeguards
The Congressman also pointed to his previous legislative efforts, including the “No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act,” which he co-sponsored with former Senator Marco Rubio in 2018. This legislation aimed to ensure Congressional oversight before the US could engage in any civilian nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia, particularly in light of the controversial circumstances surrounding the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which US intelligence has linked to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Sherman asserted that any agreement with Saudi Arabia should include stringent safeguards, akin to those in place with the United Arab Emirates, which signed a similar agreement in 2009. The UAE undertook commitments to non-proliferation, refraining from pursuing domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. He challenged the rationale behind the current US approach, questioning, “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 and they don’t even have to agree to these additional inspections?”
Hypocrisy in Policy
Sherman’s critique extended to the broader US foreign policy framework regarding nuclear proliferation. He highlighted what he termed a “great hypocrisy” in the contrasting treatment of Iran and Saudi Arabia. While the US has taken a hard stance against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Sherman argued that Saudi Arabia is not being held to the same standards of oversight and regulation. “Saudi Arabia is not agreeing to the additional inspections that could make sure that their program is not used … to develop a nuclear weapon,” he stated, referring to aspects of the agreement that have not yet been disclosed to Congress.
As the discussion unfolded, Sherman predicted a resolution of disapproval would be introduced, calling on his colleagues to stand against the proliferation of nuclear weapons among non-democratic states in the region. His comments served as a reminder of the delicate balance the US must navigate in its relationships with Middle Eastern countries.
Why it Matters
The potential implications of the US-Saudi nuclear agreement extend beyond bilateral relations; they pose significant risks to regional stability and global non-proliferation efforts. As nations like Iran continue to challenge the nuclear status quo, the decision to equip Saudi Arabia with nuclear technology could exacerbate tensions, leading to an arms race in an already volatile region. Congress’s role in scrutinising such agreements is crucial, ensuring that safeguards are not only established but also adhered to, in order to prevent a repeat of historical misjudgements that could have dire consequences for international security.
