In a pointed exchange during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Congressman Brad Sherman has urged for a thorough examination of the Trump administration’s nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. Drawing parallels to past US military support for the Shah of Iran, Sherman expressed deep reservations about the implications of allowing Saudi Arabia access to nuclear technology, warning that it could mirror the significant miscalculations of the 1970s.
Historical Parallels Drawn
During the hearing, Sherman, a Democrat representing Los Angeles, recounted the historical context of US relations with Iran before the Islamic Revolution. He noted, “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 stressed that the Shah of Iran acquired substantial military technology from the US, which, fortunately, did not include anything nuclear.
Sherman warned that the political landscape in Saudi Arabia could shift dramatically within a decade, suggesting that the current leadership might not be as stable or aligned with US interests in the future. “Everything the Shah had in 1978 was in the mullahs’ hands in 1979,” he cautioned, highlighting the unpredictable nature of regional politics.
Legislative Efforts and Safeguards
The congressman also recalled his previous legislative efforts, notably the “No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act,” which he co-sponsored in 2018 alongside then-Senator Marco Rubio. This proposed legislation aimed to ensure that Congress would have a say before any civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Riyadh could proceed. It also sought to address the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which US intelligence later linked to the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.
Sherman argued that if a nuclear deal were to be approved, it must include stringent safeguards akin to those established in the 2009 agreement with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This agreement had set a precedent by committing the UAE to nonproliferation and foregoing domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing. He posed a critical question: “Is there any reason we should be bombing Iran because they won’t agree to limit their nuclear programme while telling Saudi Arabia we give them the green light?”
Hypocrisy in Policy
In his dialogue with Mike Waltz, the US ambassador to the UN, Sherman pointed out what he termed a “great hypocrisy” in US foreign policy. He highlighted that while the US condemns Iran for its nuclear ambitions, it appears to be affording Saudi Arabia more leniency regarding oversight and inspections. Sherman noted that media reports suggested Saudi Arabia was not agreeing to additional inspections that could ensure their programme would not be diverted towards weapon development.
“Saudi Arabia is not agreeing to the additional inspections that could make sure that their programme is not used … to develop a nuclear weapon,” he stated, further emphasising the necessity for Congressional oversight in any forthcoming agreements.
Future Implications
Sherman concluded with a prediction that a resolution of disapproval regarding the nuclear deal would likely be introduced, inviting other committee members to join him in advocating for measures to prevent nuclear proliferation in non-democratic countries in the region. He subtly referenced Israel’s known nuclear arsenal, suggesting that the situation calls for a unified approach to nuclear policy in the Middle East.
Why it Matters
The call for oversight in the US-Saudi nuclear agreement underscores a pivotal moment in American foreign policy, with implications that stretch far beyond the immediate geopolitical landscape. As Congress grapples with the balance of power in the Middle East, the decisions made regarding nuclear technology exportation could redefine alliances and stability in a region already rife with tension. Ensuring robust safeguards and transparency is crucial, as the consequences of miscalculations could reverberate for generations, potentially setting the stage for a new arms race in one of the world’s most volatile areas.
