The Saudi proliferation question

[kristopher]

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, Tehran’s 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 countries—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The six-month agreement freezes Iran’s 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 Iran’s declared nuclear facilities. In return, the P5 + 1 has agreed to lift some of the sanctions that have nearly crippled Iran’s 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 Hussein’s regime in Iraq; Iran’s 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 Iran’s 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 Tehran’s nuclear program came in...

http://www.thebulletin.org/saudi-proliferation-question

Ali Ahmad is postdoctoral research fellow in nuclear technology policy at Princeton University’s 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.

[bananas]

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]

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]

2. Saudi with nukes should be more of a worry than Iran