Slashdot Mirror
House Opens Inquiry Into Proposed US Nuclear Venture In Saudi Arabia (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: President Trump's former national security adviser and other White House officials pushed a venture to bring nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia over repeated legal and ethical warnings that potential conflicts of interest around the plan could put American security at risk, concluded a new report from House Democrats released on Tuesday. The 24-page report from the House Oversight and Reform Committee outlined actions taken in the early weeks of the Trump administration to secure government backing to have American companies build dozens of nuclear power plants across Saudi Arabia, potentially at the risk of spreading nuclear weapons technology. But House Democrats said there was evidence that as recently as last week, the White House was still considering the proposal.
Claims presented by whistle-blowers and White House documents obtained by the committee show that the company backing the nuclear plan, IP3 International, and its allies in the White House were working so closely that the company sent a draft memo to the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, to circulate just days after the inauguration. Mr. Flynn had worked on the plan for IP3 during the Trump campaign and transition, the Democrats said, and continued to advocate for it in the White House. Even after Mr. Flynn left the White House in February 2017, officials on the National Security Council pushed ahead, the Democrats said, ignoring advice from the N.S.C.'s ethics counsel and other lawyers to cease all work on the plan because of potentially illegal conflicts. At a March 2017 meeting, a National Security Council aide tried to revive the IP3 plan "so that Jared Kushner can present it to the President for approval," the Democratic report said, a reference to Mr. Trump's son-in-law and top adviser. The draft memo also referenced another close Trump associate, Thomas J. Barrack, who served as chairman of the president's inaugural committee. It said that Mr. Trump had appointed Mr. Barrack as a special representative to implement the plan, which it called "the Middle East Marshall Plan." The memo also directed agencies to support Mr. Barrack's efforts.
Claims presented by whistle-blowers and White House documents obtained by the committee show that the company backing the nuclear plan, IP3 International, and its allies in the White House were working so closely that the company sent a draft memo to the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, to circulate just days after the inauguration. Mr. Flynn had worked on the plan for IP3 during the Trump campaign and transition, the Democrats said, and continued to advocate for it in the White House. Even after Mr. Flynn left the White House in February 2017, officials on the National Security Council pushed ahead, the Democrats said, ignoring advice from the N.S.C.'s ethics counsel and other lawyers to cease all work on the plan because of potentially illegal conflicts. At a March 2017 meeting, a National Security Council aide tried to revive the IP3 plan "so that Jared Kushner can present it to the President for approval," the Democratic report said, a reference to Mr. Trump's son-in-law and top adviser. The draft memo also referenced another close Trump associate, Thomas J. Barrack, who served as chairman of the president's inaugural committee. It said that Mr. Trump had appointed Mr. Barrack as a special representative to implement the plan, which it called "the Middle East Marshall Plan." The memo also directed agencies to support Mr. Barrack's efforts.
Pretty damn sure Jussie Smollett pretty much made a mockery of the claim that the media isn't biased
Are they implying that Arabs cannot be trusted with nuclear materials? So intolerant and hateful...
The US is freaking out about Iran and their nuclear ambitions (and rightly so), but they will build nukes all over saudi arabia, the perpetrators of 911?
How does that make any sense what so ever?
A violation of the Atomics Act, completely rejected and rebuffed by the Security Council, and yet still being pushed despite secretly set to enrich Trump's cronies. #Drain the swamp and sell the country to the Saudis.
Aluminium and Steel from Canada? National Security Risk.
Wahhabi Nuclear? Potential profit!
Literally nothing. He's giving nuclear technology to a nation that hates Israel and funds and supplies terrorists.
They still 100% support him unconditionally.
Bush gave the Saudis weapons, Obama gave the Saudis a TON of weapons. After all that some power plants seem pretty tame.
Not that I support this nonsense. We shouldn't be doing ANY business with the Saudis while they're carrying out a genocide in Yemen.
It's how you run them.
To get pure plutonium suitable for bombs you run them balls out for a short period, then reprocess the fuel.
When run for power, you end up with a mix of plutonium isotopes. Which puts you back where you started with Uranium. Doing isotope separation.
This was about countering Iran. Machiavellian trick to get a concession from them, or alternatively maintain the Shia/Sunni stalemate in the face of Iran's inevitable nuke.
This is of course applicable to 'conventional' enriched uranium fueled nukes.
My understanding is that Saudi owns a couple of nukes, but they have them stored in Pakistan, for political reasons. Not unlike Japan, who has them, but hasn't done the final assembly.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your assertion that Obama "gave Iran the bomb" by getting them to agree to halt production and open themselves to inspections.... is beyond dishonest, you're actually a lying traitor faggot propagandist at that point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework
Learn to read, Trump traitors. - Or prison is going to be that much less enlightening for you.
Learn to read yourself. This is about (A) nuclear power, as the summary notes, and (B) my own personal observation that everyone complaining now was very, very quiet when we were giving money to Iron to help support a much more direct nuclear power -> nuclear weapons route.
It's fine if you want to complain now about Saudi Arabia getting nuclear weapons - as long as you were complaining then.
Personally I am on the fence about SA getting nuclear weapons, but I still support helping them obtain nuclear power plants with oversight. At least they would ACTUALLY let us monitor, unlike Iran.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
that I want to see.
A few Kt or Mt worth? OK
We get it: You know every Democrat.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Cool. You picked up on the ruse.
Iran said that before you did, though.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Your assertion that Obama "gave Iran the bomb" by getting them to agree to halt production and open themselves to inspections.... is beyond dishonest, you're actually a lying traitor faggot propagandist at that point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework
Learn to read, Trump traitors. - Or prison is going to be that much less enlightening for you.
You're a fucking idiot. Yeah, you are.
Obama was a FOOL over Middle East policy. Literally, a FOOL:
Syrian regime linked to over 300 chemical attacks – report
The Syrian regime and government-backed militias have carried out over 300 chemical attacks in the war-torn country, according to a report published Sunday.
The research, published by the Global Public Policy Institute, shows there were at least 336 chemical attacks over the course of the civil war in Syria, with 98 percent of them carried out by President Bashar Assad’s regime. The remaining 2% of attacks could be attributed to the Islamic State terrorist group.
Your boy Obumbles created a "red line" and said that if Syria used chemical and crossed that red line, the US would do something.
So, tell us, bright boy. What did Obumbles do about Syrian use of chemical weapons?
Yeah, nothing.
And now you want to believe Obumble's claims about what Iran would do are credible?
Grow a brain. You need to.
Gee, let's think about this some more. Who is the major power supporting Syria? Oh, yeah, Iran. Who did Obumbles hand a path to nuclear weapons to? Oh, yeah, Iran again.
You really want to go down the path of "I don't like this policy, therefore it's treason"? Obumbles is the one vulnerable there.
The answer is no and no.
You failed
Fake news doesn't want to talk about the Uranium One deal though. I wonder why?
Hey Anonymous Coward, the mainstream media discussed it extensively at the time.
For example:
https://www.latimes.com/nation...
Problem was their fact-based analysis didn't reinforce your lies, so you decried it as "FAKE NEWS!"
He's giving nuclear technology to a nation that hates Israel
I guess you are kind of behind the times, Saudi Arabia has had a bit of a leadership turnover and now at the prompting of the U.S. supports Israel.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Done and done. They are leaving them in Pakistan, for now. Politics.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You fucking idiot! We didn't give Iran their nuclear capability, but Trump is wanting to give it to the Saudi.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Here's the truth: the current logic of Trump and company is to accuse very loudly "the other side" of precisely the crimes they're engaged in. This is intended to later muddy the waters, to issue call backs to "why weren't *they* investigated?", and generally underplay the outrage by making it something the public has felt for years and felt frustrated because nothing was done against "those" people. Having said all that, I wonder how pizza-gate will turn out.
We didn't give Iran their nuclear capability, but Trump is wanting to give it to the Saudi.
Fuel for power plants is not even close to weapons grade, and the power plant deal includes extra safeguards. It actually lowers the chance of the Saudis building a bomb.
TFA contains implications of guilt-by-associate and innuendo about "potential conflicts of interest" but it didn't mention a single concrete problem with the deal. It means jobs for Americans, and lower CO2 emissions in Saudi Arabia.
I don't defend this
I was disappointed in Trump also when I read a headline saying he was giving them nuclear weapons.
But when I read the actual details, as per usual the fact is Trump is doing nothing wrong and giving someone access to clean nuclear power is quite a lot different from giving them nuclear weapons. Especially Saudi Arabia which is one of the more responsible nations in the region (yes even AFTER assassinating a kind-of journalist, they are one of the better ones!).
I think Trump has pretty piss poor performance in the middle east policy.
Based on what? He's the first president in ages that has other arab countries stating to side with Israel, and in addition helping defend the region from Iran. Trump has not started any wars there and avoided much expansion into Syria, unlike Obama who destroyed Libya with Hillary Clinton's help - a peaceful nation that I was planning to visit before they fucked it up beyond hope of salvation.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The fact they confuse nuclear power plants with nuclear weapons risk tell us just how ignorant they are. The only part that matters in that regard is the fuel processing technology, and Trump wanted us to do that and sell it to them.
Just another meaningless wolf call from the left.
I actually thought giving the Saudis access to non-weaponizable forms of nuclear power was a decent idea for this reason. However it would still be illegal, counter to all of US foreign policy, and massively hypocritical after Trump's harping on the fact-free Uranium One conspiracy theory.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Turn key export grade power generating plants.
Not the traditional domestic ones with a door on the side for nuclear weapons production lines.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
AC oil is for export and making a profit.
Nuclear is for more always on energy to grow trade, business, 24/7 production lines.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
AC turn key export grade nuclear reactors cant do easy on the side nuclear weapons production lines.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Applicable Ferengi rules of acquisition: #177, #189, #261, #292
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's every nuclear reactor ...
Saudi Arabia gets 90%+ of their electricity from oil and natural gas. To make a profit on oil they have to export it, not burn it locally. To stop burning it for electricity they need something to replace it. They may be building lots of solar but they are also building nuclear. It seems they plan to build far more nuclear than solar. If solar power cannot support Saudi Arabia then it's not likely to work anywhere else either. Their lack of faith in solar power should concern us all.
A citation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Yessir. Here is an example of the innuendo about "potential conflicts of interest":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-trump-appointees-promoted-selling-nuclear-power-plants-to-saudi-arabia-over-objections-from-national-security-officials-house-democratic-report-says/2019/02/19/6a719762-3456-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html
The Saudi's do not need Nuclear Power plants to produce nuclear weapons - they already have them. The Pakistan weapons program and inventory has been paid for by the Saudi's with the tacit agreement that if Iran comes calling with ground forces, then it's instant sunshine time.
The House of Saud will have absoutely zero regret on sending all those Shia's to paradise a bit earlier than planned and it will be cheered in the streets [well not in the East perhaps] if it does.
Ironically the Israeli's are involved as well - they have always seen Iran in the last few decades as their greatest enemy via their proxies and a nuclear armed Saudi gives them a large security buffer. The Saudi public comments about Israel and the Palestinians are purely PR - in reality they have many common interests and that the Gulf states in private do not give tuppence about the Palestinian's situation and never have.
Electricity from Oil costs approx 4 cents per KWH, from Nuclear approx 30 cents per KWH. There are 3 rational reasons for building a nuclear reactor: 1-medical radioisotope production, 2-mobile power (ships), 3-building bombs. Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia have any practical justification for building a nuclear reactor. Doesn't the Iran Nuclear Deal impose those same safeguards to prevent weapons production?
The Iran Nuclear Deal made it harder and more time consuming for Iran to build nuclear bombs. Even just slowing them down is worth the effort as it gives time for political change in Iran (stage a revolution?). Short of invasion we don't have any other workable options, sanctions aren't working.
Solar power + batteris has been cheaper than Nuclear Power for over 30 years. They are not doing this for economic reasons.
I'm sorry you're ill.
Get better soon, OK?
I mean that.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You are a complete fucking partisan idiot. You wouldn't be able to see reality if it slapped you across the face and kicked you in the nuts. The next time you want to post what someone else thinks, remember: you're a fucking idiot and don't actually know. Why is it you lie so fucking much?
Jesus, just get off the fence please.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Thats who you don't burn oil for energy AC.
Export the oil and use nuclear for domestic energy production.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"