
Grave Concerns Over White House Efforts to Transfer Nuclear Tech to Saudi Arabia - jonathanjaeger
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-whistleblowers-raise-grave-concerns-with-white-house-efforts-to
======
JanSolo
Try to imagine the list of countries that you LEAST want to have nuclear
weapons. Saudi Arabia has got to be up there along with North Korea, Iran and
Syria. Who ever is trying to share this nuclear tech is taking a huge risk
with everyones safety.

~~~
_bxg1
> taking a huge risk with everyones safety

You presume they have any interests that aren't self-serving. It's not a risk
if you don't care about the consequence.

------
hiyer
Pakistan - a nearly bankrupt, terrorism-infested, Islamic country - has had
nuclear tech for decades. I'm pretty sure if Saudi Arabia wanted to buy
nuclear tech from them it would only be a phone call and a few billion $ away.

------
tomp
Can someone explain how this would work? I'm rather certain that noone in the
White House doesn't _actually_ know how to construct a bomb... So, they'll
have to order someone else (presumably someone in the military) to transfer
those secrets. Why would that person listen to the executive branch, if what
they would do would be illegal?

~~~
_bxg1
Things get very complicated when someone who has authority over you tells you
to do something illegal. The president is commander-in-chief, and it's not the
first time a president has given a command that's not strictly legal.

------
credit_guy
Here’s a link I found googling for the “Marshal Plan for the Middle East”.
It’s from April 2018, and it goes in quite a lot of the details of this
affair.

[https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/seychelles-uae-
georg...](https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/seychelles-uae-george-nader-
michael-flynn-middle-east-marshall-plan/)

And here’s the copy-paste of the section “Rationale”

“The Rationale

The deal had three main rationales motivating the various parties.

The Middle East Marshall Plan would have provided an excuse to remove
sanctions against Russia. US businesses would need to work with sanctioned
Russian entities. Striking a deal that the Administration could sell as
bringing power and economic development to the Middle East, as well as
bolstering the struggling US civilian nuclear industry, might have softened
Congressional support for sanctions, particularly among Republicans. The deal
would involve potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in profit. Why Erik
Prince would care: Corporate documents projected the plan would generate “$250
billion in revenue for US companies.” Billions of dollars from a project
requiring a lot of private security would pique the interest of Prince, head
of a private security company. Why Tom Barrack would care: Tom Barrack was
reportedly looking to invest in the US nuclear industry, which would have
received a huge windfall. Why Russia would care: This deal could also involve
massive investment in Russian state-owned companies, which could explain why
the CEO of RDIF, Kirill Dmitriev was at the Seychelles meeting. Dmitriev is
close to Putin and is charged with shepherding foreign investment into Russia.
There was an economic policy and geopolitical incentive. Middle Eastern
countries are legitimately seeking nuclear power to support their growing
populations. The Gulf states’ participation would have supported regional
economic development. More fundamentally, this would also serve a broader
geostrategic objective for the Gulf. As part of this deal, Russia would likely
need to shift or soften its approach toward Iran and Syria. In exchange, they
would not only receive a huge economic windfall, but would become more closely
aligned with the US and the wealthy Gulf states. For the UAE, a deal like this
would cement a relationship with the new Trump administration. MbZ’s
attendance – even though the other attendees were far lower ranking – could be
explained by the huge investment required and the potential geopolitical
stakes. “

------
kuwze
This seems like a misunderstanding more than anything else. The cofounder of
IP3 is a four star general in the US Army.

[http://ip3international.com/member/general-ret-john-m-
jack-k...](http://ip3international.com/member/general-ret-john-m-jack-keane/)

~~~
Trombone12
Uh, no. Pretty textbook nuclear proliferation, the KSA doesn't have the
required treaties with the IAEA to buy a nuclear power plant from responsible
parties of the NPT.

This doesn't matter to Bolton of course, because he simply hates international
treaties on pure principle.

------
_bxg1
The best we can hope for is to weather the next two years without suffering
damage to our nation that's truly irreparable, and that the brazen cronyism on
display will be a reality-check for all who would otherwise dip their toes
into casual corruption. God help us all.

~~~
Waterluvian
I think Americans in most of their political discourse continue to miss the
point. There's a significant portion of the country who voted for the guy and
will vote for him again. He's just a symptom. Whatever it is that's making
those people vote for him is where everyone's attention needs to be.

~~~
amanaplanacanal
For the most part, the lives of people who live in cities has gotten better
over the last generation. They voted for the status quo.

For the most part, the lives of people who don't live in cities has _not_
gotten better over the last generation, and they voted for change.

These differences are structural, and I don't think anybody knows how to make
them better. You can tell people to give up their current lifestyle and move
somewhere else with more opportunity and a completely different lifestyle, but
that's a really hard sell.

------
batbomb
The Times submission around this was flagged. Considering this particular
issue actually does have a few overlaps with tech, given the nature of Saudi
investment/Softbank and the tech transfer (which often stays on the front page
when it’s China), as well as nuclear (which also tends to stay on the front
page) - it would be nice if this isn’t flagged and there could be a
substantial discussion on it.

~~~
_bxg1
I've seen lots of unflagged articles on here about world events which aren't
necessarily related to tech, and given that this is a .gov website, there
shouldn't be (as much) concern about it being politically charged.

~~~
organsnyder
It's a news release from a representative's office. Surely a news article from
a reputable outlet would be less "politically charged" (whatever that means)?

~~~
odorousrex
This is from the House Oversight committee, a group made up of a bipartisan
group of congressmen whose job is to oversee, investigate and report on the
actions of the executive branch.

~~~
organsnyder
Yes, it is from the committee, but after watching GOP-controlled House
committees operate for the past eight years, it's hard to claim that they
can't be partisan. I'm not claiming that it's not accurate (I'd expect it to
be much more factual than anything the GOP would put out), but I'd expect a
well-researched news article (with actual competent journalism—not just both-
sides he-said-she-said garbage) to be less "political".

