In a recent hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Brad Sherman, a Democratic representative from Los Angeles, raised alarm over the Trump administration’s nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, drawing parallels to the United States’ past military support for the deposed Shah of Iran. Sherman, a veteran legislator with extensive experience in foreign policy, cautioned that the implications of this agreement could mirror the historical consequences of empowering a regime that may not remain aligned with U.S. interests in the future.
A Call for Oversight
During the session, Sherman questioned Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former national security adviser to Donald Trump. He expressed grave concerns about the potential risks associated with providing nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, a nation with a complex political landscape. “There are those who think that the Saudi possession of nuclear technology is totally benign,” Sherman stated, recalling the era when the Shah of Iran was a staunch ally of the U.S. “Everything the Shah had in 1978 was in the mullahs’ hands in 1979,” he warned, as he highlighted the swift political shifts that can occur in the region.
Sherman’s remarks underscore a significant apprehension: the unpredictability of Saudi Arabia’s future leadership. The congressman emphasized, “We have no idea who is going to be running Saudi Arabia 10 years from now,” suggesting that, like Iran after the 1979 revolution, the Kingdom may one day shift towards a less friendly regime.
Legislative Proposals and Historical Context
Sherman further elaborated on previous legislative efforts aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. In 2018, he and then-Senator Marco Rubio introduced the “No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act”, which sought to ensure that any civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia would require congressional approval. The act also called for an investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a case that has strained relations between the U.S. and Saudi leadership.
The congressman argued that any agreement should include stringent safeguards akin to those established in the 2009 nuclear deal with the United Arab Emirates. This would entail Saudi Arabia committing to nonproliferation and forgoing domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing. “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?” Sherman pressed Waltz, indicating a troubling double standard in U.S. foreign policy.
Hypocrisy in Policy?
The dialogue took a sharp turn when Sherman pointed to perceived contradictions in the U.S. approach toward Iran and Saudi Arabia. After Waltz suggested that U.S. resolutions against Iran provided a justification for military action, Sherman countered with a sense of moral indignation. “There’s great hypocrisy here,” he stated, highlighting that Saudi Arabia is not agreeing to the additional inspections that would ensure its nuclear ambitions are not weaponised.
In closing, Sherman predicted that there would be efforts within Congress to introduce a resolution of disapproval regarding the Saudi nuclear deal. He extended an invitation to fellow committee members to join his cause in advocating for stringent nuclear non-proliferation measures, especially concerning non-democratic regimes in the region. His remarks subtly alluded to the fact that Israel, while not officially acknowledged, possesses nuclear weapons, which complicates the discourse on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
Why it Matters
The debate surrounding the Saudi nuclear deal illustrates the delicate balance the U.S. must maintain in its foreign policy, particularly in a region fraught with tension and unpredictability. As lawmakers like Sherman highlight the potential risks of empowering nations with nuclear capabilities, the implications extend far beyond immediate geopolitical interests. They compel a broader reflection on America’s commitment to non-proliferation, the consistency of its foreign policy principles, and the potential for unintended consequences that could reverberate for decades. The echoes of history remind us that today’s decisions could shape tomorrow’s realities in ways we may not fully comprehend.