Saudi Arabia's Nuclear Future: What the Landmark Agreement With the US Means

The landmark nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia marks a major geopolitical shift that could reshape the balance of power across the Middle East while triggering debate over nuclear security and regional stability.

Photo: Pravda.Ru by Valentina Etka is licensed under Все права защищены

A nuclear power plant with cooling towers and a large electrical substation

Historic Nuclear Cooperation Agreement Signed

On July 22, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a landmark agreement on cooperation in the field of nuclear energy, the US Department of Energy announced. The department described the document as historic, noting that it provides for long-term cooperation and investments worth several billion dollars.

Saudi Arabia is far from the first country to conclude a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States.

This framework is widely known as a Section 123 Agreement, named after the relevant provision of the US Atomic Energy Act. Without such an agreement, American companies cannot obtain authorization to export nuclear technologies, equipment, materials, or fuel. The United States has signed similar agreements with Russia, China, and most European countries.

The benchmark for this type of cooperation remains the agreement signed with the United Arab Emirates in 2009. Under that arrangement, the UAE permanently renounced domestic uranium enrichment. The new agreement with Saudi Arabia contains no such commitment.

According to available information, the agreement does not require Saudi Arabia to sign the Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Instead, a separate safeguards arrangement will be concluded directly between the Kingdom and the United States.

Safeguards, Oversight, and Non-Proliferation Concerns

Andrea Stricker, Deputy Director for Nonproliferation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned that this approach could leave the IAEA with fewer opportunities to inspect undeclared nuclear facilities.

Other experts, however, argue that the agreement serves US interests.

Dan Joyner, a nuclear regulatory consultant and professor of law at the University of Alabama, said that the absence of the Additional Protocol alone should not automatically raise alarm. In his view, the benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation outweigh the remaining risks associated with nuclear proliferation.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of the agreement, he noted, is that it opens a highly profitable market to American companies, helping revive the US nuclear industry. At the same time, the deal reduces the likelihood that Saudi Arabia will seek nuclear technology from China or Russia.

According to The Wall Street Journal, one of the agreement's key provisions allows for the possibility that American companies could build a uranium enrichment facility inside Saudi Arabia. A final decision will follow a joint two-year feasibility study designed to determine whether such a project would be economically and technically viable.

Regional Security Implications

At the same time, the escalation of regional conflicts—including the confrontation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States—has fueled debate within Saudi Arabia over whether the Kingdom should eventually acquire nuclear weapons.

For now, however, such proposals remain on the political fringe. Developing an independent nuclear arsenal would expose Saudi Arabia to significantly greater risks and security challenges than potential strategic benefits.

The discussion also takes place against a sensitive historical backdrop. A significant number of the terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks as members of al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization banned in Russia, were Saudi nationals. Less than a quarter of a century has passed since those events.

Political Opposition Inside the United States

The nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia has also sparked strong criticism within the United States, drawing opposition from both left-wing critics of President Donald Trump and conservative opponents.

Among the most prominent critics is independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, one of the country's best-known progressive politicians. Democratic lawmakers have also condemned the agreement.

During a session of the House of Representatives, Congressman Brad Sherman argued that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by efforts to enrich Westinghouse Electric, the company that designs equipment for nuclear power plants.

The agreement was also criticized by Hunter Biden, the son of the 46th President of the United States. He said that Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law, has been actively promoting the nuclear deal during negotiations in the Middle East despite holding no government position and despite objections from officials responsible for US national security.

Geopolitical Consequences

The agreement was signed against the backdrop of renewed tensions between Iran and the United States, along with Washington's regional allies.

Beyond strengthening US-Saudi cooperation, the deal could significantly limit opportunities for Russia, China, and South Korea to expand their own nuclear partnerships with Saudi Arabia.

In Tehran, the agreement is almost certain to be viewed as an unfriendly move aimed at preventing the emergence of a regional order more favorable to the Islamic Republic.