The Trump administration may have just signed an agreement so controversial that President Donald Trump himself is opposed to it.<\/p>\n
On Wednesday, the US and Saudi Arabia signed a 30-year, multibillion-dollar <\/a>nuclear energy cooperation agreement. The terms of the deal signed by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and his Saudi counterpart have not been released, but some of the details discussed by officials in reporting by the Wall Street Journal<\/a> and New York Times<\/a> earlier this week raised eyebrows, mainly the fact that in addition to helping the Saudis construct nuclear reactors, the US could potentially help the Saudis construct facilities to enrich their own uranium.<\/p>\n The US and Saudi Arabia signed a landmark civilian nuclear deal this week, which President Donald Trump then undermined by adding new conditions after the signing.Saudi Arabia has notably balked at safeguards that were included in other similar deals, and for the first time ever, the US is helping another country build a facility to enrich its own uranium.Saudi Arabia has suggested in the past that it would seek to acquire its own nuclear weapon if Iran ever developed one. Experts fear the deal could put the region on the path to a nuclear arms race.<\/p>\n The timing is particularly awkward with the US currently at war with Saudi Arabia\u2019s rival Iran, in large part due to concerns about that country\u2019s nuclear enrichment program.<\/p>\n It is also happening in the context of an emerging new nuclear world<\/a>, where last century\u2019s arms control agreements are falling by the wayside<\/a>, regimes like Russia are increasingly employing nuclear threats<\/a>, and longtime US allies are increasingly nuclear-curious<\/a> due to both growing military threats and skepticism about the value of American security guarantees. It could raise the risk that other countries will seek the capability to raise the bomb, even if they don\u2019t immediately build one.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s unprecedented in the history of US nuclear policy,\u201d said Matthew Kroenig, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of the book, Exporting the Bomb<\/a>. \u201cNever before have we helped another country build a uranium enrichment facility. All the way back to Eisenhower, the deal has been: If you want nuclear energy, terrific. We\u2019re happy to help you, but you can\u2019t make the fuel because once you make the fuel, it\u2019s too dangerous.\u201d<\/p>\n Whether the deal will even happen is getting less clear. The agreement was already going to face significant opposition in Congress, where it must be sent for review, but Trump added to the confusion on Thursday morning with a Truth Social post that contradicted much of what had been reported the day before. Trump wrote<\/a> that there would be \u201cno enrichment of material\u201d under the deal and that the agreement is \u201ctotally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords,\u201d referring to the series of diplomatic normalization agreements between Israel and a number of Muslim countries signed during Trump\u2019s first term. This was not reported in any of the media accounts earlier in the week, which were based on statements from US officials.<\/p>\n The Saudi government has not yet responded to Trump\u2019s latest statement, but sources close to the talks have indicated that no such pledge was included in the negotiations<\/a>.<\/p>\n Saudi Arabia has long insisted that it will not normalize relations with Israel until the creation of a Palestinian state, and if they had caved on that position prior to the agreement, it seems unlikely that no one would have mentioned it before today. At a press briefing on Thursday, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt affirmed that the deal would be<\/a> \u201coff\u201d unless Saudi Arabia joined the Abraham Accords. Asked for clarification on the discrepancy between Wednesday\u2019s reporting and Trump\u2019s announcement on Thursday, the White House press office referred Vox to Leavitt\u2019s statement.<\/p>\n At the moment, there\u2019s more confusion than clarity around the deal, and what it means for the future of both the Middle East and global efforts to control nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n What\u2019s standing between Saudi Arabia and a nuke?<\/p>\n This idea behind the Saudi deal isn\u2019t new: Both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration pursued a civilian nuclear deal with the kingdom. It\u2019s been a controversial notion for just as long, given Saudi Arabia\u2019s often aggressive foreign policy, human rights record \u2014 including the high-profile murder of US citizens \u2014 and the fact that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said in the past that his country would seek to build its own nuclear bomb<\/a> if Iran ever acquired one.<\/p>\n Saudi Arabia insists that its interest in nuclear energy is purely peaceful \u2014 part of a larger<\/a> goal to diversify its economy away from oil and gas and to generate power for a nascent artificial intelligence industry. Proponents in the US argue that a deal would deepen ties between the US and an important security partner. It would also, they argue, head off the risk of Saudi Arabia cooperating instead with China or Russia to build a nuclear program and be a potential windfall for the US nuclear power industry.<\/p>\n The US has previously entered into 29 nuclear cooperation agreements<\/a> \u2014 commonly known as \u201c123 deals\u201d for Section 123, the legislation that governs them \u2014 involving 49 countries. The deals require countries to submit to a number of safeguards to prevent them from weaponizing these nuclear programs, including requiring US consent for any enrichment of uranium for the US-built nuclear plants.<\/p>\n In more recent US deals, most countries have agreed to give the International Atomic Energy Agency even more stringent inspection authorities. Some have gone further: Under the deal signed with the United Arab Emirates in 2009 and Taiwan in 2013, the countries agreed to forswear any enrichment of uranium on their soil, including for projects in which the United States is not involved. This has been called the \u201cgold standard\u201d for nuclear sharing deals, and it\u2019s what the US pushed for in previous nuclear sharing negotiations with Saudi Arabia.<\/p>\n The Saudis have long balked at some of the stricter provisions in some more recent US deals, such as additional IAEA inspections and a pledge to enrich no uranium at all. The kingdom has argued these are intrusive infringements on its sovereignty, particularly given that Iran was allowed to continue enriching under previous agreements with the US. But, Kroenig said, there\u2019s little plausible reason to oppose these restrictions if Saudi Arabia is only interested in civilian energy.<\/p>\n \u201cThey probably haven\u2019t decided to build nuclear weapons yet, but it seems like they want the option,\u201d Kroenig said.<\/p>\n Saudi Arabia is not going to build a bomb overnight. It\u2019s not even going to start enriching uranium for some time. Under the deal \u2014 at least the version that was reported earlier this week by the Wall Street Journal \u2014 US companies would immediately begin work on building nuclear power plants when the deal goes into force, while US and Saudi officials would conduct a two-year study to determine \u201cvalue of enrichment for Saudi Arabia.\u201d (This, notably, would likely be concluded during Trump\u2019s term.)<\/p>\n In this respect, the deal may in fact be tougher than the never-concluded Biden agreement, which reportedly would have allowed enrichment to begin immediately.<\/p>\n If the study concludes Saudi Arabia needs to enrich, the enrichment facility would be constructed in a secretive \u201cblack box\u201d to prevent the Saudis from acquiring sensitive technology. If the US objects to Saudi enrichment after the study, the Saudis couldn\u2019t enrich for another 10 years. After that, it\u2019s not clear what happens.<\/p>\n The safeguards do not mollify many nonproliferation experts.<\/p>\n \u201cSkeptical is a mild way of putting it,\u201d said James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment. \u201cEven if you black-box the technology, Saudi Arabia could still nationalize the facility. This is a country that has overtly declared an interest in proliferation. Once it\u2019s on Saudi soil, you have very limited options to stop it from misusing that technology if it decides to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n The most difficult and expensive part of building a nuclear device is uranium enrichment, and the US will have helped Saudi Arabia a long way down that path. That doesn\u2019t mean the kingdom is necessarily planning to build a bomb, but if it decides on that course of action down the road, it will have a significant head start.<\/p>\n \u201cSaudi Arabia\u2019s nuclear program does not pose a near-term proliferation risk,\u201d said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association. Rather than trying to quickly build a bomb, she suggested that \u201cthe more likely scenario is that Saudi Arabia will continue to acquire the capabilities that would be necessary to weaponize and move to the threshold of nuclear weapons, which would enable a rapid move to build the deterrent if the decision were made.\u201d<\/p>\n This, she added, would both complicate ongoing nuclear talks with Iran and \u201cset a terrible precedent\u201d for future nuclear agreements.<\/p>\n \u201cLook, there are some benefits to the deal,\u201d said Robert Einhorn, a former State Department special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control. \u201cIt will give a boost to the US nuclear industry. It will help cement US-Saudi strategic relations. It will deny Russia and China a foothold in an important element of the Saudi economy. But the Trump administration will have to work hard to convince the Congress and the American public that the shortcomings of the deal are not disqualifying.\u201d<\/p>\n That process starts this week. The agreement will now be submitted to Congress for a 90-day review period. This isn\u2019t a formal treaty that requires approval. Congress has to pass a joint resolution opposing it.<\/p>\n The deal is likely to draw opposition on both sides of the aisle. In 2019, then-Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (FL), now secretary of state, sponsored legislation<\/a> that would require any 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia to be affirmatively approved by Congress. (\u201cI miss Sen. Rubio,\u201d Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a co-sponsor of the House version of the bill, said during a hearing on Wednesday.)<\/p>\n In addition to security concerns, the potential conflicts of interest around the bill may also draw scrutiny. Tom Barrack, a close Trump confidante who is now US ambassador to Turkey and an adviser on Middle East policy, was investigated by federal authorities<\/a> and was the subject of a House probe<\/a> during Trump\u2019s first term for lobbying for nuclear deals with Saudi Arabia and the UAE while he had significant real estate investments in those countries and ties to the government.<\/p>\n ProPublica also reported in 2019 that Barrack had sought a major financial stake in Westinghouse<\/a>, the nuclear reactor builder. The Wall Street Journal wrote<\/a> that Westinghouse Electric is likely to be one of the main beneficiaries of the deal to build nuclear reactors in the Kingdom.<\/p>\n It still seems unlikely that opponents of the deal in Congress will be able to cobble together a veto-proof majority to block it. The better question is whether Trump is effectively blocking it. If he is really going to insist on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, that could be a nonstarter for Mohammed bin Salman.<\/p>\n A new nuclear world takes shape<\/p>\n Events in recent years <\/a>have led Saudi leaders to doubt the extent to which the US would really come to their aid in a worst-case scenario. There have been mixed reports<\/a> about whether Saudi Arabia backed or opposed Trump\u2019s decision to launch this year\u2019s war on Iran \u2014 the Saudi government denies supporting it \u2014 but either way, if this war ends with Iran\u2019s regime still in place, in possession of its uranium stockpile, and in control of the world\u2019s most critical energy chokepoint<\/a>, the doubts in Riyadh about America\u2019s reliability will only increase, along with their nuclear ambitions.<\/p>\n In the coming weeks, the White House will make the case that this deal is safer and more comprehensive than the ones the US would not agree to in the Biden administration and Trump\u2019s first term. But that argument will be harder to make against the notion that Saudi Arabia\u2019s incentive to build a bomb has only grown since then.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Trump administration may have just signed an agreement so controversial that President Donald Trump himself is opposed…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":557745,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[2084,51645,1435,42,43,238,40,38,41,39,17652],"class_list":["post-557744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headlines","tag-climate","tag-defense-security","tag-energy","tag-headlines","tag-news","tag-politics","tag-top-news","tag-top-stories","tag-topnews","tag-topstories","tag-world-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/557744","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=557744"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/557744\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/557745"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=557744"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=557744"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=557744"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}