Symbolism Over Substance: On the U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal
The announcement of a civilian nuclear agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia, occurring amidst a U.S.-Iran conflict sparked by Tehran's nuclear ambitions, could scarcely have been announced at a less opportune moment. The situation grew more intricate when U.S. President Donald Trump, subsequent to the agreement's signing, introduced a novel prerequisite: Saudi Arabia's accession to the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia has long aspired to develop a peaceful nuclear program. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, often referred to as MBS, seeks to liberate the kingdom from its reliance on oil. His Vision 2030 initiative aims to diversify the economy through financial services, extensive infrastructure projects, tourism, and energy-intensive artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. Currently, the kingdom's electricity generation is heavily dependent on petroleum and natural gas. Saudi officials contend that nuclear energy would help satisfy increasing domestic power demands, simultaneously freeing up greater quantities of oil and gas for export. MBS initially raised his nuclear aspirations with Mr. Trump during the latter's inaugural presidential term. His successor, Joe Biden, presented a similar deal, but made it conditional on Riyadh joining the Abraham Accords. At that juncture, Saudi Arabia seemed amenable to normalizing relations with Israel, yet Hamas's assault on Israel in October 2023 and Israel's subsequent devastating conflict in Gaza caused the Saudis to set aside the proposal. The agreement revealed on July 22 indicated that discussions between Riyadh and Washington persisted, and both parties remained committed to nuclear collaboration.
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Saudi Arabia possesses every entitlement to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy initiative. However, the accord unveiled by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright permits the prospect of nuclear enrichment on Saudi territory. This directly contradicts the United States' firm opposition to any Iranian enrichment within its borders. Furthermore, the agreement, according to reports in U.S. media, does not obligate Saudi Arabia to adopt the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which grants inspectors expansive authority to conduct unannounced inspections. This omission has intensified apprehensions that the kingdom might eventually gain the technical capacity to weaponize its nuclear program. Confronted with domestic criticism, Mr. Trump asserted that the deal would only advance if Saudi Arabia joined the Abraham Accords—a condition conspicuously absent at the time of the agreement's initial signing. This apparent policy reversal is unlikely to reassure Riyadh, which already harbors doubts regarding the dependability of U.S. security pledges. Should the deal ultimately proceed, Tehran is expected to stiffen its stance on enrichment in any subsequent nuclear negotiations with the U.S. If Mr. Trump’s aim was to bolster a long-standing ally while asserting strategic leverage over a regional adversary, the execution of this deal has yielded the inverse outcome. Poorly timed diplomatic efforts, vague stipulations, and fluctuating prerequisites have exacerbated Saudi concerns and fortified Iran’s resolve. Such is the consequence of Mr. Trump’s distinctive approach to deal-making.