Trump can do no wrong, so it must be the right policy.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/21/us/politics/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Never, ever trust the NYT. They have lied and mislead so many times. This is just another example of fear mongering...in this case a distraction working against Trump on the eve of efforts to pass the Save America Act.

If the Arabs were indeed allowed a pathway to weaponization (a complex pathway w several bottle necks btw), I would be dead set against it. In fact, I am against it with any other country, but most especially with any country in the volatile middle east.
But that is not what is really going to happen here. I trust Trump, but I trust Rubio even more...he is very level headed.

I call BS once again by the NYT. Their headline is purposely inflammatory, and no such deal that allows them a pathway to nuclear weapons will be allowed.


Link: https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/trump-saudi-arabia-nuclear-program/2026/07/22/id/1263672/

Any nuclear deal includes this one with Saudi Arabia, if below that gold standard, is not acceptable.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

As of 2025, there are 416 operational nuclear reactors worldwide with a combined net capacity of 376,261 MWe, and 63 reactors under construction totaling 66,190 MWe
Nuclear energy contributes roughly 9% of global electricity and over 20% of low-carbon electricity, making it the second-largest source of low-carbon power

(no message)

We have well established enriched uranium trade market. Go to buy it if you want to use nuclear energy.

(no message)

(no message)

about anything and everything (see Reflection Pool Fiasco)...he can't ever be trusted. Thanks to DJT, we are on the cusp of Iran and Saudi Arabia being able to produce nuclear weapons...and it could not have happened without MAGA votes.

...from the NYT article...
---------------------

Nonetheless, debate over the accord is likely to be fierce. To get the deal done with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s 40-year-old de facto leader, Mr. Trump had to agree to terms that may limit international inspectors from going to any sites in the country that they think could be a pathway to diverting fuel to weapons projects.

And he agreed that, after a joint study with Saudi Arabia on the economics of producing nuclear fuel, the Saudis may be allowed to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium on their soil.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday night that Mr. Trump had approved the agreement.

Prince Mohammed has vowed he would build nuclear weapons if Iran does so, even insisting in one interview he would do so “without a doubt.”

Iran has had a nuclear program that it says is intended for civilian use, though it has enriched uranium to near weapons grade following Mr. Trump’s withdrawal in 2018 from an Obama-era nuclear deal. Mr. Trump then ordered U.S. forces to join with Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear sites in June 2025, and to start a waragainst Iran this February.

Mr. Trump and Prince Mohammed agreed to proceed with U.S.-Saudi civilian nuclear cooperation during a visit to the White House by the prince last November. U.S. and Saudi officials have been in talks on a plan since then. They were finalizing the details this spring and summer, and aimed to share the plan with Congress soon, The New York Times reported earlier this month.

The agreement includes two secret side letters reached with the Saudis. The administration is expected to argue they contain proprietary business information and deal with sensitive national security issues. But some members of Congress may not be willing to vote for the accord until the letters are all made public.

The type of deal that the Trump administration has reached with Saudi Arabia is called a 123 Agreement (pronounced 1-2-3), which establishes a legally binding framework between nations on nuclear cooperation. The obligations of such an agreement are aimed at ensuring non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States has 26 such agreements with 51 governments and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Mr. Trump’s concessions to the Saudis on the terms of the nuclear deal are significant. When the United States entered into a similar agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which went into force in 2009, there were far more restrictive conditions. The U.A.E. agreed to the stringent inspections, signing what is called an “additional protocol” with the International Atomic Energy Agency. And it agreed to forgo the right to produce its own fuel, cutting off the possibility that it would have the infrastructure to produce a weapon.

That agreement became known as the “gold standard” for nuclear nonproliferation. And while the administration plans to argue that it will have other restrictions in place — including joint partnerships with the Saudis that will allow Washington to keep a close eye on the kingdom’s program — the fact remains that Mr. Trump has retreated from the restrictions negotiated by the Bush and Obama administrations.

While the bulk of the negotiations with the U.A.E. took place while President George W. Bush was in office, it was finished by President Barack Obama and went into effect in 2009.

During the first Trump administration, Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a businessman and top fund-raiser for Mr. Trump, proposed to the White House that U.S. companies, including his own private equity firm, help Saudi Arabia build nuclear power plants. That proposal stalled, in part because of Saudi reluctance to agree to American nonproliferation policies.

Trump is fucking wrong. Let’s hope congress reject it.

If we let Iran get nukes, it was inevitable that Saudi Arabia would get them, too, so that was already the Democrat plan ... and it is still a bad plan even if Trump does it.

I'm willing to say an idea of Trump is bad. Are you willing to say an idea of a Dem president is bad?

Consider: Non-proliferation was already abandoned as a strategy. Clinton failed to stop N.Korea and even gave them a reactor. Obama failed to stop Iran and even paid them and gave them a timeline for getting them. Ukraine and Libya were both punished severely for turning over their nukes. Too bad our leaders couldn't/wouldn't pull it off. Maybe non-proliferation was a pipe dream, but postponing proliferation seemed like an admirable goal that we jettisoned a bit soon.

(no message)

Link: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-way-forward-on-a-us-saudi-civil-nuclear-agreement/

Talking to you fucks is like pissing into the wind.

I didn't know about this then - which did not go forward - or I would have opposed it.

Great. You can talk with the people you choose that think exactly like you. It’ll be one big liberal circle jerk.

Also, this is a football website not a fucking political think tank. Deep political conversations are not the specialty, it just so happens to be a large portion of the threads and has driven many good posters away. Being on the protected list also helps certain people who seem to have free rein.

I will bypass posting your own recent whatabouts and then your claims of Totally Differentism.


I agree that there is no way that I want any Arab nation being able to enrich uranium and developing their own nuclear weapons program.
I do not believe this Adm - esp this Adm - would allow that. I am not assuming the worst as you always do wrt Trump Adm. I take Rubio at his word.

That is called a "whataboutism" - not sure you heard of it. But it's how morons and soviets discuss things.

It’s obvious you just don’t like anyone who you consider MAGA and truthfully, the feeling is mutual. Why ask a question when you really don’t give a shit about the answer and will only call the people who answer morons or mouth breathers?

Cheeks said it best - you guys are Blue MAGA. This board is a perfect example of this world. Split by political party with an over watch who protects one side. Now I’m sure this will be taken down and you won’t be able to answer or just flat out won’t.

As much as you don’t admit it, you’re a lot like Trump. Name calling, celebrating someone’s death and clearly one sided. I know it sucks, but it’s true.

See my post above wrt this particular plan. But notice how the change from fossil fuels to nukes is no longer even a second thought to them. It was always political.

(no message)

(no message)

Link: https://911familiesunited.org/federal-judge-finds-credible-evidence-of-saudi-government-involvement-in-9-11-attacks/