6 ms·

Grave Concerns Over White House Efforts to Transfer Nuclear Tech to Saudi Arabia

130 points by jonathanjaeger 8y ago

kadendogthing 8y ago
* Watergate * Iran Contra (does history repeat itself, or do we just like making the same mistakes?) * 5 million emails "deleted" under the Bush administration * The Iraq War * DNC Hacking Scandal * Use of executive emergency powers to bypass legislation based policy purely to inflame racial sentiments and dog whistles. * Transferring nuclear secrets to a foreign government illegally <--- You are here Just a short timeline of events under Republican/conservative U.S. administrations. There's definitely not a pattern or anything though.
- tomp 8y ago
  Can you please make a similar list for the Democratic party?
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    I actually can't. I have tried.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      In your "trying", you list the Bush emails but not the Clinton emails? You aren't trying very hard...
      - kadendogthing 8y ago
        One thing doesn't make a list. Clinton did hand over emails, and the deletions were vetted by lawyers and government officials. She did this back in 2014, two years before the election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Deletion_of_emails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#House_Oversight_Committee_hearing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve... Oh, and the Clinton email controversy only had 0.6% of the emails involved in the Bush email controversy.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    Bill Clinton... cheated on his wife that one time
    - jjeaff 8y ago
      With that very young intern in his employ. Traditionally known as sexual harassment. Of course that was just one of the many cases of impropriety with women and allegations of assault.
      - _bxg1 8y ago
        From my understanding it was consensual, which is not harassment. Not quite the same as "grabbing her by the p*y".
        jjeaff 8y ago
        Many will argue that there is no way to know if there was true consent when there is such a power differential between the two parties and especially when the act is taking place in the workplace between boss and subordinate. Which is why most workplaces require any kind of relations like this to be declared in writing to HR or in some cases forbidden all together.
  - webdevatlurk 8y ago
    This is a fun read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scan... Edit: looks like somebody already posted it while I got distracted reading it.
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      That's just a list of scandals under the timeline of then-present administrations. It is not actions taken by the administration that they are categorized under. You claim it's a fun read, but I think you can only claim that if you decided to actually read it. And the evidence points to the fact that you very obviously didn't.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  As someone who's spent a lot of time around Republicans, their driving mantra is that any means justifies the ends. The most principled still believe in something resembling admirable ends behind all the actions they take, but even those are a dying species.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    As a prime example, take the Punisher emblem (and the mentality behind it). These days you see it on trucks and land rovers all over the place (at least here in Texas). The character, for those who don't know, was created as an antihero who circumvents the judicial system and commits extreme violence against those he judges to be criminals. He was designed to be a commentary. From the guy that created him: “I was an anti-war person. I argued against it and certainly wrote against it...In my mind he’s not a good guy.” From Chris Kyle, the "American Sniper": “He righted wrongs. He killed bad guys. He made wrongdoers fear him...We spray-painted it on our Hummers and body armor, and our helmets and all our guns. We spray-painted it on every building or wall we could, We wanted people to know, We’re here and we want to fk with you.” http://time.com/3819227/punisher-iraq-isis/ http://time.com/3819227/punisher-iraq-isis/
- dustinchilson 8y ago
  This isn't really a party issue. This is a systemic issue. I agree there is a pattern, but you really didn't try very hard to show both sides. Top of my head was Operation Fast and Furious which was an Obama era scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scan...
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >This isn't really a party issue. It very obviously is. You'd be insane or willfully ignorant to claim it's not. Your link is just a timeline chunked into administrative buckets, a lot of those having nothing to do with _actual_ actions taken by the administration. The one scandal you alluded to started in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner Considering that the amount of guns actually involved in the "scandal" is a mote of dust compared to the total amount of guns in the U.S., and that the one notable case that was the tipping point for this scandal was actually dismissed, and that the one official who was held in contempt of congress (which was voted along party lines: https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988 https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contem...) for continuing a program started under the bush administration, I don't think anything you've linked or alluded to really is equatable in any remote fashion. Please try again.
- sctb 8y ago
  Please stop trolling. We ban accounts that won't post civilly, substantively, and on-topic. > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    Please don't resort to superficial, baseless claims about "trolling" because you have an issue with a timeline being presented. You should instead attempt to point out what's wrong with it, if anything. Can you please pinpoint the exact parts of my post that are uncivil? I posted a historical timeline of actual controversies involving Republican administrations because there is a clear, repeatable pattern that happens. Are you saying I am not allowed to bring attention to something that seems characteristic of a particular organization, backed up by a historical timeline because it might offend people's sensibilities? If so, just say that instead of throwing labels at my post under the guise of moderation. Being neutral does not mean ignoring facts or being unprincipled. You cannot form opinions and perspectives by ignoring facts or refusing to investigate observed characteristics about any system. Please reevaluate your position on my post. I'm including a screenshot for all to see because your claims are not substantive in any reasonable context: https://imgur.com/w5EJ2gT https://imgur.com/w5EJ2gT
    - dang 8y ago
      What's wrong with your comments in this thread, and similar comments, is that they're ideological/political battle made more fiery by snark. This sort of internet posting only makes sense in the context of flamewars, which is what they produce and perpetuate. We don't want flamewars on HN, as you know—or ought to, given the number of times we've had to ask you not to do this. Since we eventually ban accounts that can't or won't stop posting in the flamewar style, could you please just not do this anymore on Hacker News? Regardless of topic, and regardless of how wrong other commenters are or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
_bxg1 8y ago
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.
- vkou 8y ago
  > the next two years By which, you surely mean, the next six. > suffering damage to our nation that's truly irreparable I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement (Who is left out of such agreements is an exercise for the reader.) The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage, that the political system is not at all designed (Or has the will) to deal with.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    > By which, you surely mean, the next six. I think we have a very good chance of un-electing him. He's alienated all but his most dedicated core base, and there's a huge list of Democratic primary candidates from which to whittle down the very strongest. Lots of people who voted for him did it with the mentality of "The establishment's bad; let's try something different. Drain the swamp. Things couldn't get any worse." Now those people are saying, "Oh." > I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement. The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage. This is definitely true, unfortunately. A government is made of people, and no government system can withstand being populated by bad (or at least shortsighted) people. Most of those before Trump weren't massively better people than him, morally speaking. Even Obama quietly did some really shady things. What they did have was tact, and intelligence, and self-control. They didn't take Putin's word over their own intelligence agencies (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695646320/andrew-mccabe-fbi-investigations-into-trump-were-extraordinary-steps https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695646320/andrew-mccabe-fbi-i...). They didn't display such erratic behavior that their own white-house staff called psychiatrists to ask if they should be worried (https://splinternews.com/white-house-staffers-reportedly-told-psychiatrist-trump-1828884897 https://splinternews.com/white-house-staffers-reportedly-tol...). They didn't have a nuclear football installed in their personal residence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/pentagon-nuclear-football-trump-tower-apartment https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/pentagon-nuc...). Whatever objectives his predecessors had, they knew those couldn't happen if they literally endangered the society underpinning them.
batbomb 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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 8y ago
        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".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
JanSolo 8y ago
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.
- Trombone12 8y ago
  Who ever? It's the Trump administration, says so right at the top.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  > 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.
tomp 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.
- Trombone12 8y ago
  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia don't have the agreements with the IAEA required for a party to the non-proliferation treaty to sell them regulated technology as they currently don't have any nuclear facilities. But you know how Trump is with international treaties; I'd guess this is mostly about letting nuclear tech companies sell regulated tech in violation of the conditions of the NTP.
kuwze 8y ago
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-keane/ http://ip3international.com/member/general-ret-john-m-jack-k...
- Trombone12 8y ago
  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.
hiyer 8y ago
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.
credit_guy 8y ago
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-george-nader-michael-flynn-middle-east-marshall-plan/ https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/seychelles-uae-georg... 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. “

* Watergate * Iran Contra (does history repeat itself, or do we just like making the same mistakes?) * 5 million emails "deleted" under the Bush administration * The Iraq War * DNC Hacking Scandal * Use of executive emergency powers to bypass legislation based policy purely to inflame racial sentiments and dog whistles. * Transferring nuclear secrets to a foreign government illegally <--- You are here Just a short timeline of events under Republican/conservative U.S. administrations. There's definitely not a pattern or anything though.

tomp 8y ago
Can you please make a similar list for the Democratic party?
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  I actually can't. I have tried.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    In your "trying", you list the Bush emails but not the Clinton emails? You aren't trying very hard...
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      One thing doesn't make a list. Clinton did hand over emails, and the deletions were vetted by lawyers and government officials. She did this back in 2014, two years before the election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Deletion_of_emails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#House_Oversight_Committee_hearing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve... Oh, and the Clinton email controversy only had 0.6% of the emails involved in the Bush email controversy.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  Bill Clinton... cheated on his wife that one time
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    With that very young intern in his employ. Traditionally known as sexual harassment. Of course that was just one of the many cases of impropriety with women and allegations of assault.
    - _bxg1 8y ago
      From my understanding it was consensual, which is not harassment. Not quite the same as "grabbing her by the p*y".
      - jjeaff 8y ago
        Many will argue that there is no way to know if there was true consent when there is such a power differential between the two parties and especially when the act is taking place in the workplace between boss and subordinate. Which is why most workplaces require any kind of relations like this to be declared in writing to HR or in some cases forbidden all together.
- webdevatlurk 8y ago
  This is a fun read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scan... Edit: looks like somebody already posted it while I got distracted reading it.
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    That's just a list of scandals under the timeline of then-present administrations. It is not actions taken by the administration that they are categorized under. You claim it's a fun read, but I think you can only claim that if you decided to actually read it. And the evidence points to the fact that you very obviously didn't.
_bxg1 8y ago
As someone who's spent a lot of time around Republicans, their driving mantra is that any means justifies the ends. The most principled still believe in something resembling admirable ends behind all the actions they take, but even those are a dying species.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  As a prime example, take the Punisher emblem (and the mentality behind it). These days you see it on trucks and land rovers all over the place (at least here in Texas). The character, for those who don't know, was created as an antihero who circumvents the judicial system and commits extreme violence against those he judges to be criminals. He was designed to be a commentary. From the guy that created him: “I was an anti-war person. I argued against it and certainly wrote against it...In my mind he’s not a good guy.” From Chris Kyle, the "American Sniper": “He righted wrongs. He killed bad guys. He made wrongdoers fear him...We spray-painted it on our Hummers and body armor, and our helmets and all our guns. We spray-painted it on every building or wall we could, We wanted people to know, We’re here and we want to fk with you.” http://time.com/3819227/punisher-iraq-isis/ http://time.com/3819227/punisher-iraq-isis/
dustinchilson 8y ago
This isn't really a party issue. This is a systemic issue. I agree there is a pattern, but you really didn't try very hard to show both sides. Top of my head was Operation Fast and Furious which was an Obama era scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scan...
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >This isn't really a party issue. It very obviously is. You'd be insane or willfully ignorant to claim it's not. Your link is just a timeline chunked into administrative buckets, a lot of those having nothing to do with _actual_ actions taken by the administration. The one scandal you alluded to started in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner Considering that the amount of guns actually involved in the "scandal" is a mote of dust compared to the total amount of guns in the U.S., and that the one notable case that was the tipping point for this scandal was actually dismissed, and that the one official who was held in contempt of congress (which was voted along party lines: https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988 https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contem...) for continuing a program started under the bush administration, I don't think anything you've linked or alluded to really is equatable in any remote fashion. Please try again.
sctb 8y ago
Please stop trolling. We ban accounts that won't post civilly, substantively, and on-topic. > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  Please don't resort to superficial, baseless claims about "trolling" because you have an issue with a timeline being presented. You should instead attempt to point out what's wrong with it, if anything. Can you please pinpoint the exact parts of my post that are uncivil? I posted a historical timeline of actual controversies involving Republican administrations because there is a clear, repeatable pattern that happens. Are you saying I am not allowed to bring attention to something that seems characteristic of a particular organization, backed up by a historical timeline because it might offend people's sensibilities? If so, just say that instead of throwing labels at my post under the guise of moderation. Being neutral does not mean ignoring facts or being unprincipled. You cannot form opinions and perspectives by ignoring facts or refusing to investigate observed characteristics about any system. Please reevaluate your position on my post. I'm including a screenshot for all to see because your claims are not substantive in any reasonable context: https://imgur.com/w5EJ2gT https://imgur.com/w5EJ2gT
  - dang 8y ago
    What's wrong with your comments in this thread, and similar comments, is that they're ideological/political battle made more fiery by snark. This sort of internet posting only makes sense in the context of flamewars, which is what they produce and perpetuate. We don't want flamewars on HN, as you know—or ought to, given the number of times we've had to ask you not to do this. Since we eventually ban accounts that can't or won't stop posting in the flamewar style, could you please just not do this anymore on Hacker News? Regardless of topic, and regardless of how wrong other commenters are or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

_bxg1 8y ago

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.

vkou 8y ago
> the next two years By which, you surely mean, the next six. > suffering damage to our nation that's truly irreparable I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement (Who is left out of such agreements is an exercise for the reader.) The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage, that the political system is not at all designed (Or has the will) to deal with.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  > By which, you surely mean, the next six. I think we have a very good chance of un-electing him. He's alienated all but his most dedicated core base, and there's a huge list of Democratic primary candidates from which to whittle down the very strongest. Lots of people who voted for him did it with the mentality of "The establishment's bad; let's try something different. Drain the swamp. Things couldn't get any worse." Now those people are saying, "Oh." > I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement. The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage. This is definitely true, unfortunately. A government is made of people, and no government system can withstand being populated by bad (or at least shortsighted) people. Most of those before Trump weren't massively better people than him, morally speaking. Even Obama quietly did some really shady things. What they did have was tact, and intelligence, and self-control. They didn't take Putin's word over their own intelligence agencies (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695646320/andrew-mccabe-fbi-investigations-into-trump-were-extraordinary-steps https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695646320/andrew-mccabe-fbi-i...). They didn't display such erratic behavior that their own white-house staff called psychiatrists to ask if they should be worried (https://splinternews.com/white-house-staffers-reportedly-told-psychiatrist-trump-1828884897 https://splinternews.com/white-house-staffers-reportedly-tol...). They didn't have a nuclear football installed in their personal residence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/pentagon-nuclear-football-trump-tower-apartment https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/pentagon-nuc...). Whatever objectives his predecessors had, they knew those couldn't happen if they literally endangered the society underpinning them.

batbomb 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

JanSolo 8y ago

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.

Trombone12 8y ago
Who ever? It's the Trump administration, says so right at the top.
_bxg1 8y ago
> 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.

tomp 8y ago

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 8y ago
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.
Trombone12 8y ago
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia don't have the agreements with the IAEA required for a party to the non-proliferation treaty to sell them regulated technology as they currently don't have any nuclear facilities. But you know how Trump is with international treaties; I'd guess this is mostly about letting nuclear tech companies sell regulated tech in violation of the conditions of the NTP.

kuwze 8y ago

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-keane/ http://ip3international.com/member/general-ret-john-m-jack-k...

Trombone12 8y ago
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.

hiyer 8y ago

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.

credit_guy 8y ago

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-george-nader-michael-flynn-middle-east-marshall-plan/ https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/seychelles-uae-georg... 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. “