Why Flynn's Nuclear Advocacy Was So Dangerous
While one might read Mike Flynns dealing with a variety of unsavory foreign interests as greed unmoored from principle, its important to step back and understand what the implications were of his advocacy for American security. In particular, his efforts to sell nuclear reactors in the Middle East run counter to several important U.S. security goals.
<snip>
First, in order for this deal to go through, Flynn would have to convince the Trump administration to rip up the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration on Russia for their interference in the U.S. election.
<snip>
Second, it is troubling that Flynn would have considered partnering with foreign consortiums to sell nuclear technology because U.S. civilian nuclear technology sales require significant national security provisions, which Russian and Chinese technology agreements do not have. By law, U.S. nuclear energy technology cannot be exported without what is known as a 123 Agreement, the terms of which are specified by the Atomic Energy Act.
These agreements must contain legally binding commitments that limit the potential for U.S.-provided material and technology to be used to make nuclear weapons.
<snip>
Finally, Flynns actions could have further destabilized an already volatile region. While he was pushing these companies,
the Obama administration was negotiating an agreement to halt Irans efforts to acquire nuclear weapons technology. It was often argued that if Iran wasnt stopped, it could have begun a nuclear arms race between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Ripping up that deal, as Flynn advocated, and allowing Iran to race for the bomb would have given Saudi Arabia motivation to acquire a large number of civilian nuclear reactors, providing cover for an ostensibly civilian enrichment capacity that could mask a covert weapons program. -
LawFareBlog
The evil that Flynn, tRump's only the Best General's, would have inflicted upon future U.S. diplomacy out of pure greed is mind boggling.