Bloomberg reported last week that Saudi Arabia’s first nuclear reactor is nearing completion. It purchased the reactor from the Argentinian company, INVAP. But construction and installation of the plant has proven a huge payday for companies in several European countries and the U.S.
After the Obama administration hesitated to support the project, Trump offered full-throated support. One of the most attractive propositions in the deal for him was the lucrative contracts for U.S. businesses who participated.
The reactor is one of the crowning achievements of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (aka “the Headchopper”) in his plan to “modernize” and “reform” the Saudi Arabian economy and military. Part of his ambition has been to project his country’s power and interests in more muscular fashion in the region. One of the ways he did this was to invade Yemen and rain terror upon the Houthi regions of that country killing 100,000 Yemenis and starving even more with a crippling blockade.
Saudi Arabia’s chief regional rival has been Iran. The purpose of the reactor is to send a loud and clear message that Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be met step-for-step by MBS. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Crown Prince wants to be right behind. The problem with this approach is that Iran, which has not made such a weapon though it could have if it wanted, has pursued a careful, calibrated approach. While the Saudis have pursued a reckless, aggressive approach in every operation they undertake to project their military power.
If they can decimate Yemen as they have, sinking themselves into a costly quagmire, why would anyone think they would use the products of their nuclear reactor in any more responsible way? Does MBS’s order to murder Jamal Khashoggi, cut his body into pieces and disappear it in acid, give anyone confidence that he wouldn’t be willing to do the same to entire countries he saw as implacable enemies?
Iran has never threatened to use nuclear weapons. Just the opposite, Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa declaring them forbidden. MBS, despite the fact that his country is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact, would never swear off such weapons. In fact, the moment that he has the ability to build and deliver WMD will likely be the day he threatens to use it.
Every party which collaborated with the Saudis in this project will have blood on their hands when (not if) that country becomes nuclear-capable.
Only a decade ago, the Obama administration supported a regional conference planned to promote a Middle East nuclear-free zone. Israel, with its 200 nuclear weapons, objected strenuously and the idea died of neglect. There will come a time in the near future when the world will regret this tragically-missed opportunity.
Despite boilerplate statements that the reactor is for civilian power and research purposes, mark my words: Saudi Arabia’s nuclear reactor will eventually lead to a Saudi nuclear weapon. That weapon will exponentially increase the likelihood it will be used someday. Again, not “if,” but “when.”
“Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa declaring them forbidden”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/27/did-irans-supreme-leader-issue-a-fatwa-against-the-development-of-nuclear-weapons/
ROFL.
That it, I’m laughing just to keep from crying.
@Lemonade: How interesting that the WashPo’s Glenn Kessler has become an expert on Shiite theology–enough to judge the theological status and validity of the Ayatollah’s fatwa. That’s the first problem with this source. The second: he relies most heavily in discounting the fatwa on a “scholar” from the Aipac think-tank, WINEP. It is an intellectual propaganda outlet for the Israel Lobby. One of its purposes is to churn out anti-Iran propaganda. So you characteristically (as with Jewish Virtual Library) have cherry-picked the very lowest hanging hasbara fruit for your comment.
Oh and another thing about the “Iranian scholar,” Khalaji, relied on for the most negative views of the fatwa. Why do you think Khalaji left Iran? Because his wife stole billions, was exposed, and fled to Canada. That’s the ‘source’ Kessler relies on for the unvarnished facts about Iran.
I note as well that nowhere does Kessler say that the fatwa is invalid or non-credible. He dances around the issue but never says this outright. So you may have rolled on the floor laughing prematurely. I’d actually do some reading before linking to be sure the propaganda you’re offering really does the job for you. This doesn’t.
You also might want to stew on this for a while. In this passage, Gareth Porter recounts an interview he conducted with the founder of the IRG, who presented Ayatollah Khomeni with a plan to develop chemical and nuclear weapons in 1984, during the Iran-Iraq War. Here is Porter’s account:
So who are we to believe? Glenn Kessler and an Israeli hasbarist? Or the founder of the IRG who tried twice and in person to get the Supreme Leader to approve developing nuclear weapons, and failed each time? Gee, that’s a tough call…
Finally, the fatwa was not a key part of my argument. Actually, Iran’s actions speak louder than any fatwa. In fact, it has not developed nuclear weapons. Fact: it has not threatened to use nuclear weapons. Fact, Israel has nuclear weapons. Fact: it has not only threatened to use them, it has threatened to use them against Iran. Fact: no Israeli rabbi has ever renounced nuclear weapons or said that their use is forbidden as the Ayatollah has. So on that score, I’d say it’s Ayatollah 1-Rabbis 0.
You are done in this thread.
What is the Iranian nuclear program then?
Are they throwing away billions in infrastructure and suffer all sort of economic difficulties for “science”? Or pride?
@ Carmel Yativ: A “nuclear program” is just that. A program. A “nuclear weapons program” is entirely different. The CIA has determined that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. You may want to substitute your opinions for the view of the CIA based on massive intelligence data and expert evaluation. I don’t.
We might also stop to ask why Israel is “throwing away billions in infrastructure” via its own garrison state which includes a massive WMD arsenal unmonitored by NPT or any international body. I’d say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
A “nuclear program” is just that.
You need to be extremely naive to believe a country would go to this length and suffer these sanctions for anything that is not strategic. The report doesn’t even say it was stopped in 2003 but that “there was no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any attempt to produce nuclear weapons since 2003”. Very different.
The tremendous efforts and money Iran invested in placing the program in deep bunkers is the only proof one need to understand what program this is.
You quote Ronen Bergman when it suits you. Why won’t you quote him on that?
@ Carmel yativ: Take a look at scores of media reports saying that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and stopped the one it had in 2003: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=iran+ended+nuclear+weapons+program+2003
Every major media source listed in that Google search says the nuclear weapons program ended in 2003:
As for Bergman: he’s become little more than a mouthpiece for the Mossad. Why should I quote him?
Your hypocrisy is outrageous. Israel has 200 nuclear warheads, refuses IAEA inspections, has stolen key components of its own nuclear weapons program from foreign countries including the U.S., and had senior leaders actually advocate using WMD against Arab states during past wars. And you focus on Iran as the “bad guy.” Ridiculous!
You are done in this thread.
Question. Will SA have refinement capacity or is it just a generator? If they have refinement then yeah they could makr a nuke though from my understanding is that the stuff that makes power is fairly low grade and would have to be refined
hmm seems like the main reason for the plants is for water supply. and it also seems that its a regional thing with SA teaming up with Jordan and UAE.
From the looks of it there is going to be a low power research station and they are looking to make local production for refinement with the cooperation of the USA.
So yeah you are mostlikely correct in that SA will be an eventual nuclear power…
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/saudi-arabia.aspx