In a significant development within US foreign policy, Congressman Brad Sherman, a Democrat representing Los Angeles, has urged for a thorough examination of the Trump administration’s nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. During a recent House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Sherman drew a stark parallel between the current situation and the United States’ past military support for the Shah of Iran, warning that the consequences of exporting nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia could be equally dire.
Historical Parallels and Warnings
Sherman’s remarks were underscored by a chilling reminder of the 1979 Iranian revolution, which saw the overthrow of a pro-American regime, leading to the establishment of a theocratic government hostile to US interests. “There are those who believe that Saudi Arabia’s acquisition of nuclear technology poses no threat,” Sherman stated. “But I recall when the Shah was a staunch ally of America, and he was granted access to advanced military technology—thankfully, nothing nuclear.” This historical context serves to highlight potential risks posed by current geopolitical alliances.
The congressman expressed deep concerns regarding the unpredictability of future leadership within Saudi Arabia. “We have no idea who might be governing Saudi Arabia a decade from now,” he cautioned, emphasising the volatility of the region and the dangers of enabling nuclear capabilities in a nation whose political landscape could shift dramatically.
The Legislative Push for Oversight
In 2018, Sherman, alongside former Senator Marco Rubio, introduced the “No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act.” This legislation aimed to ensure that any civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia would require Congressional approval and mandated a thorough investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a case that has cast a long shadow over US-Saudi relations. The act highlighted the need for stringent safeguards to prevent nuclear proliferation, particularly in non-democratic nations.
Sherman has been vocal about the necessity of implementing “gold-standard safeguards” akin to those stipulated in the 2009 agreement between the United States and the United Arab Emirates. This agreement included commitments from the UAE to abstain from uranium enrichment and reprocessing, a standard Sherman believes should be non-negotiable for Saudi Arabia as well.
Critique of Current Policy
During the hearing, Sherman challenged UN Ambassador Mike Waltz on the apparent inconsistency in US policy regarding nuclear capabilities in the Middle East. “Is there any justification for bombing Iran for its nuclear ambitions while simultaneously granting Saudi Arabia a free pass on inspections?” he pressed, calling attention to the perceived hypocrisy in US foreign policy.
Waltz defended the current stance, arguing that US resolutions aimed at curtailing Iran’s nuclear development were vital for maintaining regional stability. However, Sherman countered that the lack of stringent oversight regarding Saudi Arabia only exacerbates the issues, stating, “Saudi Arabia is not agreeing to the additional inspections that could ensure their programme is not diverted towards weaponisation.”
He further predicted that a resolution of disapproval regarding the Saudi nuclear agreement would soon be introduced, inviting bipartisan support from those committed to curbing nuclear proliferation in the region.
The Bigger Picture
As discussions around the Saudi nuclear deal unfold, it is clear that the implications extend far beyond bilateral relations. The spectre of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East poses a grave concern, not only for the stability of the region but also for global security. Past mistakes in foreign policy decisions serve as a cautionary tale, highlighting the necessity for a measured and vigilant approach.
Why it Matters
The potential for nuclear capabilities in Saudi Arabia raises critical questions about the future of regional security and international diplomacy. With a history of volatile leadership changes and a complex geopolitical landscape, the ramifications of such a deal could be profound. As Sherman’s warnings echo through the halls of Congress, the need for a robust oversight mechanism becomes increasingly urgent. The stakes are high, and the decisions made today will shape the future of nuclear diplomacy in the Middle East for generations to come.
