Saudi Arabia has made a commitment to keeping nuclear weapons out of the Middle East. It is the world's most volatile region, after all. The Saudi also, through cooperation with Pakistan, have the capacity to quickly gain a nuclear arsenal. Some intelligence sources say they could have a bomb within a month.
So your tangible policy harm here is that the Saudis go from "having a bomb on order" to "having a bomb"?
The threat becomes even more concerning when you look at Iran's expressed willingness to bolster their militant allies with nuclear technology in order to encourage loyalty to Tehran. Does that bring Saudi-backed Sunni militias to the nuclear table?
Citation needed, preferably one better than
this.
A Middle East arms race coupled with an escalation in the fight for regional preeminance is what concerns me most. We see governments collapse in a matter of months in the Middle East. We see extremists take over countries. What happens when Iran gets a Libya-like rebellion against the authoritarian regime and the country is gripped by chaos? The same could be asked of Saudi Arabia. Or if Bashar Al-Assad wins in Syria, Iran chooses to bolster one of their closest ally governments with nuclear technology? Or if the Saudis strengthen shady Sunni governments with nuclear tech?
Is there any sort of Shi'a equivalent of the Islamist groups that have taken advantage of the situation in Libya? For that matter, are there any indications that the Iranian opposition includes significant Islamist elements at all? Are there any signs of instability in the Saudi regime?
