Post by Steve Gardner on Jun 11, 2008 20:38:38 GMT
The US is on the verge of launching some sort of military action against Iran for daring to undertake a domestic nuclear power programme, and yet its actively helping Saudi Arabia acquire nuclear power?
What the fuck is going on?
This is the same Saudi Arabia that supplied most of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. The same Saudi Arabia for whom democracy is almost an expletive. The same Saudi Arabia that is routinely criticised for its human rights record.
It's also the same Saudi Arabia that recently turned down Bush's plea to up the rate of oil production to help combat rising prices. Either Bush is a lousy salesman or the request made and the request reported in the media were two different things.
We've invaded countries, toppled leaders and governments, and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians for less that Saudi Arabia is guilty of.
Let's hope we don't do a 'Saddam' and arm them to the hilt before falling out with them.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
What the fuck is going on?
This is the same Saudi Arabia that supplied most of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. The same Saudi Arabia for whom democracy is almost an expletive. The same Saudi Arabia that is routinely criticised for its human rights record.
It's also the same Saudi Arabia that recently turned down Bush's plea to up the rate of oil production to help combat rising prices. Either Bush is a lousy salesman or the request made and the request reported in the media were two different things.
We've invaded countries, toppled leaders and governments, and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians for less that Saudi Arabia is guilty of.
Let's hope we don't do a 'Saddam' and arm them to the hilt before falling out with them.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
Here's a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?
If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you're right.
Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions.
Saudi Arabia has poured money into developing its vast reserves of natural gas for domestic electricity production. It continues to invest in a national gas transportation pipeline and stepped-up exploration, building a solid foundation for domestic energy production that could meet its electricity needs for many decades. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, would require enormous investments in new infrastructure by a country with zero expertise in this complex technology.
Have Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush or Saudi leaders looked skyward? The Saudi desert is under almost constant sunshine. If Mr. Bush wanted to help his friends in Riyadh diversify their energy portfolio, he should have offered solar panels, not nuclear plants.
Saudi Arabia's interest in nuclear technology can only be explained by the dangerous politics of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a champion and kingpin of the Sunni Arab world, is deeply threatened by the rise of Shiite-ruled Iran.
The two countries watch each other warily over the waters of the Persian Gulf, buying arms and waging war by proxy in Lebanon and Iraq. An Iranian nuclear weapon would radically alter the region's balance of power, and could prove to be the match that lights the tinderbox. By signing this agreement with the U.S., Saudi Arabia is warning Iran that two can play the nuclear game.
In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "[Iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure why they need nuclear, as well, to generate energy." Mr. Cheney got it right about Iran. But a potential Saudi nuclear program is just as suspicious. For a country with so much oil, gas and solar potential, importing expensive and dangerous nuclear power makes no economic sense.
The Bush administration argues that Saudi Arabia can not be compared to Iran, because Riyadh said it won't develop uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing, the two most dangerous nuclear technologies. At a recent hearing before my Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman shrugged off concerns about potential Saudi misuse of nuclear assistance for a weapons program, saying simply: "I presume that the president has a good deal of confidence in the King and in the leadership of Saudi Arabia."
That's not good enough. We would do well to remember that it was the U.S. who provided the original nuclear assistance to Iran under the Atoms for Peace program, before Iran's monarch was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Such an uprising in Saudi Arabia today could be at least as damaging to U.S. security.
We've long known that America's addiction to oil pays for the spread of extremism. If this Bush nuclear deal moves forward, Saudi Arabia's petrodollars could flow to the dangerous expansion of nuclear technologies in the most volatile region of the world.
While the scorching Saudi Arabian sun heats sand dunes instead of powering photovoltaic panels, millions of Americans will fork over $4 a gallon without realizing that their gas tank is fueling a nascent nuclear arms race.
