WASHINGTON (IPS) — A U.S. agreement to exchange nuclear information and materials with an Arab country in the Persian Gulf is facing opposition because of a video of torture conducted by a member of a ruling family from one of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In the deal, the U.S. would be willing to sell raw nuclear material to the UAE in exchange for guarantees that the fuel would not be reprocessed, a key step in weaponization.

But the video allegedly showing a member of one of the tiny country’s ruling families torturing a man has created opposition stateside in Congress, though many expect the deal will still eventually pass.

U.S. President Barack Obama issued a statement on Wednesday confirming that he intends to push the deal forward.

“I have determined that the performance of the Agreement will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and security,” the statement said, ordering Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to “arrange for its execution.”

A video smuggled out of the UAE shows a half brother of the ruler of Abu Dhabi, one of the emirates, severely beating an Afghan man reportedly accused of making a duplicitous grain deal.

The assailant, Sheikh Issa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, reportedly used a cattle prod on the Afghan man’s genitals, used a board with a protruding nail to beat him on the back, and ran over his bleeding body with a truck.

According to the Financial Times, the incident took place in 2004, but the video only surfaced recently because a man is suing Issa in a separate case.

The video was screened at a House Human Rights Commission meeting this week, and it has raised Congressional opposition to the deal.

These sorts of nuclear deals are usually made at the discretion of the president, but Congress can vote the deals down.

Since the release of the video, the UAE deal is getting hammered by members of Congress from both sides of the aisle.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a powerful Republican, was quoted in the Financial Times that she found the videos “disturbing”.

“There is much to be done before [the] UAE can be considered a model partner for a nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S.,” she said.

Rep. Jim McGovern sent a letter to Clinton asking that the deal be put on hold until the matter of the torture video is dealt with.

Rep. Ed Markey called the UAE “a country where the laws can be flouted by the rich and powerful” and said they would be incapable of “safeguard[ing] sensitive U.S. nuclear technology.”

The UAE is a conglomeration of several sheikdoms, where often single families rule autocratically and nepotism runs deep.

Obama had delayed submitting the deal to Congress, but officials from the administration have noted that he intended Congressional review since before the video surfaced.

The deal, drafted by the George W. Bush administration in its final days, was meant to set a precedent with countries in the Middle East for peaceful development of nuclear technology.

After being signed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the deal passed into the hands of the incoming Obama administration.

Many in the U.S. are fearful that if Iran’s nuclear program is, as alleged, aimed at weapons, it could spark an arms race in the region. The U.S. is attempting to align Arab nations in the region against Iran and, simultaneously, prevent an arms race by regulating the nuclear options of those countries.

The UAE, for example, has already made agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for a stringent inspections regime that would include “snap” inspections.

But areas of concern, in addition to the recent torture revelations, have existed for some time.

Many of the U.S. goods that make it into Iran, in defiance of a U.S. embargo on exports to the Islamic Republic, make their way through the ports of the Emirates. Supporters of the deal say that efforts have been made to close holes in the ports’ security and operations that let the goods get through.

The U.S.-UAE nuclear deal has found some support from odd sources.

Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative former special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and North African affairs on Bush’s National Security Council from 2002 until the end of the administration, wrote a long opinion piece in the Washington Times last month supporting the deal.

“Congress should quickly approve the agreement when it is presented,” wrote Abrams, who has also sat on the NSC as the senior director for democracy, human rights, and international operations for two years. “The… agreement must be judged on its merits, not on the basis of accusations or pure prejudice.”

He calls the UAE, an autocracy, a “firm ally” of the U.S., and says it is making progress in the areas critics have accused it of lagging behind on. His op-ed was published before the release of the torture video.