It’s Only a Nuclear Weapon, So of Course Trump Is Just Making Things Up as He Goes
Slate · L · trust 50/100
Atomic weapons are an extinction-level threat , so you’d ideally want a steady hand guiding U.S. nuclear policy. Instead, we have Donald Trump—and boy has he made the past two days tense. Yesterday, the Trump administration signed an accord to give Saudi Arabia a nuclear energy program. This morning, the president promptly threw the whole agreement into doubt. So is there a deal or not? It’s a high-stakes question; the accord could one day help the Saudis make a nuclear bomb, adding more turmoil to an already chaotic region. Today—with the help of Slate’s resident nuclear expert Fred Kaplan —I’ll explain what we know about the potential deal, and what questions remain.
Seeing Trump and nuclear in a sentence makes me nervous. What does this deal actually say?
I can’t blame you. The deal would commit U.S. companies to build nuclear reactors on Saudi soil to generate power. Despite being an oil-rich nation, Saudi Arabia has long sought this kind of deal to diversify its energy sources. The U.S. also has similar agreements with dozens of other countries.
OK, that sounds reassuring. Does this mean the Saudis can’t make a bomb?
If only. As Fred explained this week , this particular agreement is different in a key way: It could eventually let Saudi Arabia enrich its own nuclear fuel—ostensibly for medical research or other specialized purposes, but potentially to make a weapon. The deal also lacks specific provisions for international inspections, something the country reportedly insisted on. If it does make a bomb, a regional arms race could ensue.
Yikes. But why would Saudi Arabia want nukes?
The answer depends on a different Middle Eastern country: Iran. The two nations are sworn enemies, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has vowed for years that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, his country will too. Lately, that prospect has become more real; Trump’s war has arguably given Iran more reasons to pursue a bomb to deter future attacks. If it does, Saudi Arabia probably “has an interest in keeping open the possibility of having some nukes as a deterrent” of its own, Fred says.
You mentioned Trump throwing this all in doubt. What exactly happened?
Iran isn’t the only neighbor Saudi Arabia has tensions with. Israel, currently the region’s only nuclear-armed power, fought Saudi troops decades ago, and the two countries disagree about what should happen to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Given that history, Israel reacted poorly to the news of Trump’s deal with the kingdom. At first, Fred notes, it looked like Trump was indirectly telling Israel to shove it. But then the president took to Truth Social and threw a curveball . He retroactively called the deal “totally subject” to Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, a Trump-negotiated pact that would require it to establish diplomatic ties with Israel. Saudi Arabia has said it won’t do that unless Israel resumes talks to create a Palestinian state, which the current Israeli government very much opposes.
Facing blowback, Trump sometimes guts it out. But in this case, our impulsive president seems to have gone back on his word. Asked today by reporters why Trump’s latest demand wasn’t in the original deal, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt looked like a deer in headlights . She gave no explanation for Trump’s last-minute shift and said the administration would “continue to talk” with the Saudis to “get the deal finalized.” Israel’s objections were eminently foreseeable, so maybe the president is just covering his keister; after Trump’s post, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the idea of normalizing relations. But that would require a major Saudi about-face, so Trump might really be trying to sabotage an accord his administration signed less than 24 hours ago. Then again, as Fred told me, he could have another motive entirely: “With Trump’s vacillations, logical inference isn’t always the best approach.”
Even if the Saudis agree to Trump’s new demand, the deal would face congressional review before taking effect. With Republicans in control, Congress’ support looks likely, but the deal will only make it to them if Trump doesn’t blow the whole thing up. So we’re all just waiting to see what he’ll do next. It’s a familiar position to be in, but that doesn’t make it any less unpleasant—or any less shocking that the leader of the free world appears to be setting nuclear policy on a whim.
Following the diplomatic back-and-forth about a potentially existential subject could tire anyone out, so spend the rest of your night doing something else! I’d suggest:
Tuning in for some TV takes: Netflix’s binge-drop model disrupted the stodgy rhythms of old-school TV. But now the streaming service’s ratings are tumbling—and it has only itself to blame. Slate’s Sam Adams explains how Netflix became a bad TV friend . Also, we’ll explain more in tomorrow’s Your Morning Slate , but if you’re looking for a surprisingly good watch from a rival platform, check out HBO’s Stuart Fails to Save the Universe .
Satisfying your curiosity (if not your hunger): We can’t in good conscience suggest eating at Taco Bell during the ongoing cyclosporiasis outbreak . But we can wholeheartedly recommend this dispatch from Slate’s Alexander Sammon, who visited his local Taco Bell to eat chalupas with the brave Americans who aren’t letting the risk of a parasite ruin their appetite .
Listening to a sultry soundtrack: In the mid-1970s, a college radio station launched an evening program called The Quiet Storm . The show grew so popular that it spawned a whole genre of smooth and sexy music, exemplified by artists like Anita Baker and Luther Vandross. On Death, Sex & Money, host Anna Sale chats with 99% Invisible producer Christopher Johnson ( formerly of Slate !) about why The Quiet Storm resonated with an ascendant Black middle class .
Ending the day with some wordplay: Revel in the weirdness of the English language with Slate’s…
Read the original at Slate →
Open in TruthVane →