On September 25th, the American newspaper The New York Times quoted informed U.S. officials, stating that a classified intelligence assessment submitted to the U.S. Congress concluded that Saudi Arabia still has the option of developing nuclear weapons. However, they emphasized that Saudi Arabia has not yet decided whether to develop nuclear weapons.
The evaluation report has been sent to the congressmen who are reviewing the agreement between the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia to develop civilian nuclear power. Some members of both parties express concerns about this project, fearing that Saudi Arabia might use it to develop nuclear weapons, which could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Reports suggest that, from a certain perspective, this assessment is not new. American officials have long been assessing that Saudi Arabia still intends to possess nuclear weapons, as the country has threatened that if Iran acquires nuclear capabilities, Saudi Arabia will also build nuclear weapons.
Developing a civilian nuclear power program may make it easier for Saudi Arabia to achieve this goal.
The Trump administration and Saudi Arabia recently reached a 30-year agreement that allows American companies to assist in developing civilian nuclear power projects in Saudi Arabia. This move is expected to strengthen the American nuclear industry and ensure that relations between the two countries remain strong.
According to the agreement, Saudi Arabia can enrich uranium to nearly 20%. This is far below the purity required for manufacturing nuclear weapons. However, if a country has already enriched uranium to this level, it only takes a very short time to enrich it to weapon-grade levels.
The New York Times mentions that successive U.S. presidents have been committed to preventing Iran from developing nuclear capabilities, aiming to keep the Middle East region nuclear-free except for Israel. Israel is a nuclear state that has never been officially recognized.
According to the introduction, unlike treaties, this agreement does not require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate of Congress.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee reviewed the agreement during the review period. However, unless Congress passes a joint resolution to veto the agreement during this time, the agreement will take effect without the approval of either chamber.
Several Democratic members of the House of Representatives have proposed a veto of the joint resolution, attempting to block the agreement, on the grounds that the deal does not meet long-term non-proliferation standards. However, as a minority party, it is difficult for Democrats to force the resolution to be voted on in the House of Representatives against the opposition of Republican leaders.
