Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Saudi proliferation question
17 DECEMBER 2013
The Saudi proliferation question
Ali Ahmad
Concerted international efforts to keep Iran a non-nuclear weapon state might seem to constitute good news for Saudi Arabia, Tehrans top rival for leadership in the Middle East. Instead, the Saudi government is deeply disturbed by a recent interim agreement between Iran and the so-called P5 + 1 countriesthe United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The six-month agreement freezes Irans enrichment of nuclear fuel above the level needed for commercial nuclear power, halts development of the plutonium-production-capable Arak nuclear plant, and gives International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors greater access to Irans declared nuclear facilities. In return, the P5 + 1 has agreed to lift some of the sanctions that have nearly crippled Irans economy.
The reason for Saudi anger is complex: Riyadh fears a US-Iran détente at least as much as an Iranian bomb, and those concerns have led some prominent Saudis to talk openly about the possibility the kingdom will obtain nuclear weapons. This is talk that the United States should take seriously. The kingdom has embarked on a commercial nuclear power program that makes little economic sense, but could, if it becomes reality, aid a Saudi nuclear weapons program.
It is vitally important to the security of the Middle East that Iran not gain access to nuclear weapons. It is just as important that Saudi Arabia remain a non-nuclear-weapon nation.
Saudi unease, nuclear hints.The Saudi leadership has witnessed major regional shifts over the last decade: the fall of Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq; Irans expanding power in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; and, more recently, the successive waves of an Arab Spring that has challenged and sometimes deposed leaders across the Middle East. Rapprochement between the United States and Iran would further strengthen Irans position in the region. The Saudi leadership, therefore, feels the need for a long-term security solution that is in their hands and under their control.
The first public hint by Saudi officials that the kingdom would consider acquiring a nuclear weapon as a counterweight to Tehrans nuclear program came in...
The Saudi proliferation question
Ali Ahmad
Concerted international efforts to keep Iran a non-nuclear weapon state might seem to constitute good news for Saudi Arabia, Tehrans top rival for leadership in the Middle East. Instead, the Saudi government is deeply disturbed by a recent interim agreement between Iran and the so-called P5 + 1 countriesthe United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The six-month agreement freezes Irans enrichment of nuclear fuel above the level needed for commercial nuclear power, halts development of the plutonium-production-capable Arak nuclear plant, and gives International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors greater access to Irans declared nuclear facilities. In return, the P5 + 1 has agreed to lift some of the sanctions that have nearly crippled Irans economy.
The reason for Saudi anger is complex: Riyadh fears a US-Iran détente at least as much as an Iranian bomb, and those concerns have led some prominent Saudis to talk openly about the possibility the kingdom will obtain nuclear weapons. This is talk that the United States should take seriously. The kingdom has embarked on a commercial nuclear power program that makes little economic sense, but could, if it becomes reality, aid a Saudi nuclear weapons program.
It is vitally important to the security of the Middle East that Iran not gain access to nuclear weapons. It is just as important that Saudi Arabia remain a non-nuclear-weapon nation.
Saudi unease, nuclear hints.The Saudi leadership has witnessed major regional shifts over the last decade: the fall of Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq; Irans expanding power in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; and, more recently, the successive waves of an Arab Spring that has challenged and sometimes deposed leaders across the Middle East. Rapprochement between the United States and Iran would further strengthen Irans position in the region. The Saudi leadership, therefore, feels the need for a long-term security solution that is in their hands and under their control.
The first public hint by Saudi officials that the kingdom would consider acquiring a nuclear weapon as a counterweight to Tehrans nuclear program came in...
http://www.thebulletin.org/saudi-proliferation-question
Ali Ahmad is postdoctoral research fellow in nuclear technology policy at Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. His work focuses on nuclear technology assessment and the introduction of nuclear power to new markets such as the Middle East. A physics graduate from the Lebanese University in Beirut, Ali holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering from Cambridge University.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 849 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Saudi proliferation question (Original Post)
kristopher
Dec 2013
OP
bananas
(27,509 posts)1. There's a World Court opinion about existential threats
From the article:
The continuation of the Iranian nuclear program, be it under the international umbrella or not, is perceived by Riyadh as a major, and perhaps existential, threat.
The World Court made an opinion on this in response to a request by the World Health Organization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_the_Legality_of_the_Threat_or_Use_of_Nuclear_Weapons
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons was an advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996.[1]
<snip>
An advisory opinion on this issue was originally requested by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 3 September 1993:[6]
<snip>
Decision
The court undertook seven separate votes, all of which were passed:[14]
<snip>
6. The court replied that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake"[20]
<snip>
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons was an advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996.[1]
<snip>
An advisory opinion on this issue was originally requested by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 3 September 1993:[6]
In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution?[7]
<snip>
Decision
The court undertook seven separate votes, all of which were passed:[14]
<snip>
6. The court replied that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake"[20]
<snip>
I highlighted two portions:
1) The word "environmental", which shows that both the World Health Organization and the World Court consider nuclear weapons to be an environmental issue. Only an uninformed, irrational, or dishonest person would say otherwise.
2) Because "the continuation of the Iranian nuclear program" is an existential threat, Israel or Saudi Arabia might be justified in using nuclear weapons at any time, including right now.
Israel has said they're ok with Iran having light-water reactors, they don't want Iran to have enrichment facilities at all. But Obama is negotiating for 5% enrichment.
This problem isn't going away anytime soon.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)2. Saudi with nukes should be more of a worry than Iran