Why does Saudi Arabia need nuclear power?

[al-Hasani]

Nuclear Kingdom: Saudi Arabia's Atomic Ambitions

​

Olli Heinonen and Simon Henderson

March 27, 2014

Although Iran's nuclear potential will likely dominate talks between President Obama and King Abdullah on March 29, Riyadh's own nuclear plans should also be part of the discussion.

A major probable consequence of Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability is that Saudi Arabia will seek to match it. With President Obama currently rating the chances of diplomatic success as 50-50 and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei giving a "zero" probability, this weekend's U.S.-Saudi summit will be an opportunity to check whether Saudi planning can help the diplomacy rather than hinder it.

RIYADH'S NUCLEAR BLUEPRINT​

In 2009, a Saudi royal decree announced that "the development of atomic energy is essential to meet the kingdom's growing requirements for energy to generate electricity, produce desalinated water and reduce reliance on depleting hydrocarbon resources." In 2011, plans were announced for the construction of sixteen nuclear power reactors over the next twenty years at a cost of more than $80 billion. These would generate about 20 percent of Saudi Arabia's electricity, while other, smaller reactors were envisaged for desalination.

As such, Saudi Arabia's civil nuclear plans are similar in scope to Iran's admitted nuclear power program. Both countries can also claim the same economic rationale -- that providing electricity produced by nuclear power for the general population allows more oil and natural gas to be exported, contributing to export revenues and government income. But, unlike Iran, Saudi Arabia lacks any nuclear infrastructure. Its sole nuclear institution is the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy, which this week represented the kingdom at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands -- also attended by President Obama.

Since at least 2003, Saudi Arabia has consistently maintained a veiled military nuclear strategy. Reports have suggested that the kingdom is considering either acquiring its own nuclear deterrent or forming an alliance with an existing nuclear power that could offer protection, or else reaching a regional agreement on establishing a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East. It is noteworthy that discussion of these options coincided with increasing apprehension of Iran's nuclear plans, as contrasted with the posture of Israel, which is reported to have developed nuclear weapons in the late 1960s.

THE PAKISTANI OPTION
​

The most publicly discussed strategy for the Saudis involves acquiring nuclear weapons from Pakistan, either purchased or under some arrangement of joint control with Pakistani forces. In 1999, then Saudi defense minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz visited Pakistan's unsafeguarded centrifuge enrichment site at Kahuta near Islamabad and also saw mock-ups of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. During the visit, Prince Sultan met the controversial Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, who was blamed for proliferating centrifuges to Iran, Libya, and North Korea, as well as then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who was later exiled to Saudi Arabia after a military coup and is now once again Pakistan's prime minister. As well as transferring nuclear warheads to Saudi Arabia, Islamabad could provide missiles capable of hitting Iranian targets, though Saudi Arabia already has such missiles. Earlier this year, reports indicated that the kingdom had, in 2007, updated its previous arsenal of liquid-fueled Chinese CSS-2 missiles with more advanced, solid-fueled CSS-5 missiles. Both types are designed to carry nuclear warheads, but the newer missiles have been adapted, at reported U.S. insistence, so that they can carry only nonnuclear warheads.

EXAMINING THE KINGDOM'S TREATY OBLIGATIONS
​

The kingdom's current nonproliferation-related diplomatic undertakings allow it some flexibility in pursuing alternative strategies, particularly if Iran were to "break out" from its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations. Saudi Arabia ratified the NPT in 1988 but only concluded a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2009. In doing so, it agreed to an earlier version of the "Small Quantities Protocol (SQP)" and has yet to accept the modified SQP adopted by the IAEA Board of Governors in 2005. In addition, Saudi Arabia, like Iran, has not yet signed the Additional Protocol, which allows for stricter inspections. Nor has it signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, though it has consistently supported the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

In its latest Safeguards Implementation Report, the IAEA secretariat listed Saudi Arabia among those countries where it could find no apparent diversion of declared nuclear material from peaceful activities. This conclusion is based on analysis of open-source information given that Saudi Arabia does not have any declared facility and that, consequently, the IAEA has no inspections or visits to the country. According to the report, the IAEA reached this view after only limited efforts, spending just $12,000 on monitoring the kingdom. By comparison, the amount spent for IAEA activities in neighboring Jordan was $153,000.

Washington's past readiness to allow the export of advanced military aircraft and weapons systems to Saudi Arabia has been justified in part by an apparent understanding allowing the kingdom to defend itself and seek to deter Iran without recourse to nuclear weapons. Discussion of this principle could constitute one part of this weekend's meetings between President Obama and King Abdullah. However the discussion unfolds, the Saudis will, at the very least, resist any commitment to not enrich uranium as part of a prospective deal to buy U.S. nuclear technology for its projected power program. In the past, Washington has insisted on a so-called 123 agreement, named after the section of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, banning enrichment as a condition for cooperation. Such a condition was part of a deal with the United Arab Emirates when Abu Dhabi announced plans to buy nuclear power plants. But if Iran is allowed to enrich uranium as the current diplomacy suggests, the kingdom would probably demand the same right.

King Abdullah has already made clear to his U.S. counterparts that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb, the kingdom will do so as well, whatever its NPT obligations. Defining such a status -- whether through an actual nuclear weapon or a more loosely defined military nuclear capability -- is one difference in the respective diplomatic approaches of Washington and Riyadh toward Iran's nuclear ambitions. Despite the IAEA's apparent equanimity regarding the kingdom's nuclear activities, the 1988 initial purchase of Chinese missiles, the 1999 Kahuta visit, and the 2007 upgrade of the Chinese missile fleet suggest a long-term and well-developed strategy. The United States is already aware of desert facilities claimed by the Saudis to be oil-related even though there are no nearby pipelines. Also, North Korean personnel have previously been spotted in the kingdom.

OPTIONS FOR ENRICHMENT
​

If Saudi Arabia decided to build its own uranium enrichment plant, citing the need to fuel its planned nuclear power reactors, it would have two options: either establish a joint venture with a current technology holder or develop its own technology. According to the latest IAEA Nuclear Technology Review, there will be excess worldwide uranium supply for enrichment over the next decade; only Pakistan, among the technology holders, would possibly be attracted to establishing an enrichment plant in the volatile Middle East. If the kingdom opted to develop its own enrichment technology, designing a centrifuge and building a commercial-scale operation would take a decade. And even then the Saudis would not have achieved energy independence, since the country's known uranium resources are scarce, and insufficient to support such a nuclear program.

Worryingly, even for a small research and development facility, the Saudis -- under their SQP obligations -- can build the installation in secret and must only tell the IAEA 180 days before introducing nuclear material. The R&D, mechanical testing of centrifuges, and testing with surrogate materials need not be revealed.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY
​

Experience suggests that military nuclear programs are best stopped at their earlier stages. Inaction, as the world has seen with Pakistan and North Korea and, more recently, Iran and Syria, leads to wicked problems. Saudi Arabia should thus be encouraged to sign the Additional Protocol to its NPT Safeguards Agreement and implement it provisionally until ratified. The Saudis should also be urged to rescind their SQP and conclude up-to-date subsidiary arrangements to the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. These gestures would oblige the kingdom to give the IAEA design information about nuclear installations as soon as the decision is made to build them. The IAEA would likewise have access to all nuclear-fuel-cycle-related installations, even if they did not use nuclear material. Such provisions should be included in any U.S.-Saudi 123 agreement and are initial steps toward a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East.

Olli Heinonen is a senior fellow with the Belfer Center at Harvard University and a former deputy director-general for safeguards at the IAEA. Simon Henderson is the Baker Fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute. Previously, they coauthored Nuclear Iran: A Glossary of Terms, a joint publication of The Washington Institute and the Belfer Center.

Nuclear Kingdom: Saudi Arabia's Atomic Ambitions - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Nuclear weapons and first of all nuclear energy should not be an option but an must!

 

[Falcon29]

@al-Hasani

We Arabs desperately need ballistic missile solid fuel programs which everyone around us has. We need militaries we could be proud of that aren't based completely off foreign resources. If Saudi Arabia and Egypt become like Turkey and Iran militarily this would be great.

 

[jandk]

Too late for you! If saudi starts nuclearization it will meet the same fate as Iraq or Afghanistan . Should've thought about it before jumping into bed with the Americans.

 

[al-Hasani]

@al-Hasani

We Arabs desperately need ballistic missile solid fuel programs which everyone around us has. We need militaries we could be proud of that aren't based completely off foreign resources. If Saudi Arabia and Egypt become like Turkey and Iran militarily this would be great.

"Like Iran". No thank you. They have nothing to brag about. Turkey more so but it's only based on them starting the processes earlier and cooperating with EU/NATO in a way that KSA nor any other Arab country has done/had the opportunity to do. But they are doing well now compared to where they were just 10 years ago.

The nuclear option is not just about nuclear weapons. Plenty of Arab states have already initiated large plans based on nuclear energy. Even Jordan has. With Russia if I am not mistaken. Strangely enough. But having an indigenous nuclear weapons program is a very long process. It will take some time to say the least.

KSA will go nuclear. That's for sure. Whether that will also mean nuclear weapons time only will tell.

 

[Falcon29]

"Like Iran". No thank you. They have nothing to brag about. Turkey more so but it's only based on them starting the processes earlier and cooperating with EU/NATO in a way that KSA nor any other Arab country has done/had the opportunity to do. But they are doing well now compared to where they were just 10 years ago.

The nuclear option is not just about nuclear weapons. Plenty of Arab states have already initiated large plans based on nuclear energy. But having an indigenous nuclear weapons program is a very long process. It will take decades.

Forget nuclear weapons, we still have nothing to be proud of. Why aren't we reverse engineering ballistic missiles which everybody in the region has? Or cruise missiles and anti tank missiles or air defense missiles? Iran produces their own,we can criticize them but that's the truth. With the resources we have we should be building our weapons and reverse engineering them. Which Arabs produce their own missiles? Hamas a small organization produces it's own artillery rockets and is trying to do other things, that's progress. Why do we Arabs insist on buying weapons only? Is Iran getting help from NATO? They still are managing to build their own weapons even if they're nowhere near capable as actual Russian weapons.

 

[al-Hasani]

Forget nuclear weapons, we still have nothing to be proud of. Why aren't we reverse engineering ballistic missiles which everybody in the region has? Or cruise missiles and anti tank missiles or air defense missiles? Iran produces their own,we can criticize them but that's the truth. With the resources we have we should be building our weapons and reverse engineering them. Which Arabs produce their own missiles? Hamas a small organization produces it's own artillery rockets and is trying to do other things, that's progress. Why do we Arabs insist on buying weapons only? Is Iran getting help from NATO? They still are managing to build their own weapons even if they're nowhere near capable as actual Russian weapons.

Those are barely worth anything.

There are indigenous programs from what I am aware of. Egypt and Iraq had respectable military industries in the past.

Most of that are based on foreign (Russian, North Korean) technology or the remains of Western weapons imported by the Officer-Son (Shah). Reversed technology basically. Often of a very poor quality. Nothing to look up to.

Turkey is the better example here.

In any case all of that is changing. Give it 1 decade or so and you will see the fruits. It just takes time to develop an indigenous industry and when money is not a question you tend to just buy the best of the best. It's the easier way out but a worse solution on the longer run. It's bound to change. In hindsight this should have been initiated 10-15 years ago.

 

[Falcon29]

Those are barely worth anything.

There are indigenous programs from what I am aware of. Egypt and Iraq had respectable military industries in the past.

Most of that are based on foreign (Russian, North Korean) technology or the remains of weapons owned by the Officer-Son (Shah). Reversed technology basically. Often of a very poor quality. Nothing to look up to.

Turkey is the better example here.

In any case all of that is changing. Give it 1 decade or so and you will see the fruits. It just takes time to develop an indigenous industry and when money is not a question you tend to just buy the best of the best. It's the easier way out but a worse solution on the longer run. It's bound to change. In hindsight this should have been initiated 10-15 years ago.

@Yzd Khalifa @Arabian Legend @JUBA @Full Moon

You can't simply dismiss them as poor quality, they aren't poor quality. They are advanced weapons they produce in Iran. Hamas is very small and never seeks war but Israel escalated in 2012 and declared war so they had no choice but to defend theirselves. All Hamas is doing is trying to live in peace and they produce their own weapons as a deterrence. Where are military programs by Saudi Arabia and Egypt? I don't see anything being introduced, I mean serious large scale programs meant for producing effective weapons. I know it takes time though I still don't see why we insist on being so behind, we should be introducing these programs right now or else we're just heavily reliant on foreign weapons. And we're not even allowed to use them to defend ourselves, only purpose they serve is to stare at them and glorify them in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt use them to bomb our own people in the Sinai. I'm sorry but that's clearly western controlled militaries and regimes, if they actually had the aspirations of our people we wouldn't be in this position we are today and would start our own military programs. If the people in Gaza had anywhere near the resources Saudi Arabia has they would be a regional power in ten years. Nothing is holding us Arabs back except our leaders and regimes. This needs to change already.

 

[al-Hasani]

You can't simply dismiss them as poor quality, they aren't poor quality. They are advanced weapons they produce in Iran. Hamas is very small and never seeks war but Israel escalated in 2012 and declared war so they had no choice but to defend theirselves. All Hamas is doing is trying to live in peace and they produce their own weapons as a deterrence. Where are military programs by Saudi Arabia and Egypt? I don't see anything being introduced, I mean serious large scale programs meant for producing effective weapons. I know it takes time though I still don't see why we insist on being so behind, we should be introducing these programs right now or else we're just heavily reliant on foreign weapons. And we're not even allowed to use them to defend ourselves, only purpose they serve is to stare at them and glorify them in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt use them to bomb our own people in the Sinai. I'm sorry but that's clearly western controlled militaries and regimes, if they actually had the aspirations of our people we wouldn't be in this position we are today and would start our own military programs. If the people in Gaza had anywhere near the resources Saudi Arabia has they would be a regional power in ten years. Nothing is holding us Arabs back except our leaders and regimes. This needs to change already.

The point is that all of that is of mediocre or cheap quality and just reversed technology. Not impressed at all.

There is a reason why no sane state is interested in buying "Iranian made" weapons. Their reversed technology is only exported to rag-tag militias.

Palestine can take Iran as their example if they want to but we say no thank you.


It's not about abilities but about the political will. The mistake was not to focus more on indigenous programs 1-2 decades ago instead of just in the past few years. GCC had the money back then but did not do it. That was a big mistake in hindsight. No doubt about it.

It just takes time to develop an indigenous military industry and when money is not a question you tend to just buy the best of the best. It's the easier way out but a worse solution on the longer run.

Due to ME being a chaotic region many states wanted an assurance here and now and the easiest way for that was to buy the best weapons.

Anyway all that is bound to change. Every sane state knows that having indigenous production is the best way forward. In hindsight this should have been initiated 10-15 years ago.

Had that been done major Arab countries could have had respected indigenous (largely) military industries today as some Arab countries already had partially before that for various of reasons changed. Mainly due to wars, instability, regime changes, foreign meddling etc.

In any case this discussion would fit better in another thread.

@Yzd Khalifa @Arabian Legend @JUBA @Full Moon

 

[Falcon29]

The point is that all of that is of mediocre or cheap quality and just reversed technology. Not impressed at all.

So what's stopping us from producing better weapons than them? I know you personally have nothing to do with it but you also don't have an answer. It's because the truth is our militaries serve our regimes only.

There is a reason why no sane state is interested in buying "Iranian made" weapons. Their reversed technology is only exported to rag-tag militias.

Hezbollah and Hamas aren't rag tag militias, rag tag militias can't go up against Israel, that's impossible.

It's not about abilities but about the political will. The mistake was not to focus more on indigenous programs 1-2 decades ago instead of just in the past few years. GCC had the money back then but did not do it. That was a big mistake in hindsight. No doubt about it.

This is my point, we won't have this political will decades from now even. This is something scary, our militaries clearly work against our people.

It just takes time to develop an indigenous military industry and when money is not a question you tend to just buy the best of the best. It's the easier way out but a worse solution on the longer run.

Why can't we find a balance between both? Forget the GCC, it is anti Muslims oil rich Arabs who didn't contribute to our region. I'm speaking of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Saudi Arabia in my opinion is part of us Arabs in the Levant region and should be a pro Muslim nation. Although because of complex politics these days it can't be. Egypt also does everything to prevent Palestinians from arming to defend theirselves, why is that? How can one say they're Muslim and do everything to prevent arms from reaching Palestine especially when they're in a desperate situation?

Due to ME being a chaotic region many states wanted an assurance here and now and the easiest way for that was to buy the best weapons.

And if war breaks out the nations that sell you these weapons will want you to destroy each other as much as possible. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, they want to weaken the whole Arab world. We don't have any assurances from these weapons since the West can't be trusted. They clearly stand against all Arabs in the region.

Anyway all that is bound to change. Every sane state knows that having indigenous production is the best way forward. In hindsight this should have been initiated 10-15 years ago.

I can't say that about Saudi Arabian and Egyptian leaders until I see them working towards it.

Had that been done major Arab countries could have had respected indigenous (largely) military industries today as some Arab countries already had partially before that for various of reasons changed. Mainly due to wars, instability, regime changes, foreign meddling etc.

That's the point bro, they want us on one level which they decide. They will not let us become genuine regional powers even though it's our right to develop our capabilities. Even if we're minding our own business, if they see progress they may come and mass murder us like they did in Iraq. Please tell me are any of our leaders working to get us out of this miserable state? They aren't, they're corrupt and in bed with the West.

 

[armchairPrivate]

It's good to see SA develops non-fossil fuel energy.

It doesn't matter if you have shit load of fossil fuel, having nuclear energy is good to the environment.

 

[al-Hasani]

@Hazzy997

Champions League tonight. So have to go. Remind me of your post and I will try to reply some time later tonight or tomorrow.

It's good to see SA develops non-fossil fuel energy.

It doesn't matter if you have shit load of fossil fuel, having nuclear energy is good to the environment.

Exactly.

 

[Falcon29]

@al-Hasani

Lez talk Amo Hasani , kul 3am wa inta bkhayr

 

[cheekybird]

Forget nuclear weapons, we still have nothing to be proud of. Why aren't we reverse engineering ballistic missiles which everybody in the region has? Or cruise missiles and anti tank missiles or air defense missiles? Iran produces their own,we can criticize them but that's the truth. With the resources we have we should be building our weapons and reverse engineering them. Which Arabs produce their own missiles? Hamas a small organization produces it's own artillery rockets and is trying to do other things, that's progress. Why do we Arabs insist on buying weapons only? Is Iran getting help from NATO? They still are managing to build their own weapons even if they're nowhere near capable as actual Russian weapons.

Forget nukes,is there still ban on girls playing sports in schools in Saudi Arabia?

 

[al-Hasani]

Forget nukes,is there still ban on girls playing sports in schools in Saudi Arabia?

None of your business. Stick to the topic.

 

[Falcon29]

Forget nukes,is there still ban on girls playing sports in schools in Saudi Arabia?

Bacon is more important, stick to topic.