Text from the deal is yet to be made public. First reported by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, the deal could allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium — which is primarily to be used as fuel for power plants, but can also be diverted to make nuclear bombs. The US DoE noted that along with the co-operation deal, a “bilateral safeguards agreement” was also signed. However, some US media reports said the guardrails are not strong enough.
Why the US-Saudi nuclear deal raises questions
While the fine print on the nuclear agreement is awaited, two major issues need flagging.
One, this could potentially set off an arms race in a volatile region where there is already a nuclear power (Israel) and one that is on the cusp of getting there (Iran).
While the agreement marks a major diplomatic and strategic victory for Saudi Arabia, it also has the potential to reshape power dynamics in West Asia, multiple experts have said in their early comments. Its announcement also comes as fighting escalates between the US and Iran. Saudi Arabia, a longtime American ally, hosts multiple US bases, which have been targeted by these Iranian attacks. It also comes two days after Iran’s allies in Yemen, the Houthis, announced a “maritime blockade” against the Kingdom.
“It is a fact that if a country can produce its own nuclear fuel, then it becomes a much bigger risk for building nuclear weapons. The fineprint in the safeguards agreement would need to be read carefully,” a Delhi-based representative of a US thinktank told The Indian Express.
Two, this deal has to be ratified by the US Congress, which could be an uphill task despite Trump’s Republican Party currently controlling both the upper and lower chambers of the US legislature.
“We also have to keep in mind that this deal has to be ratified by the US Congress, where its passage could be tough. The broad support that Israel enjoys in the US legislature is simply not there for Saudi Arabia. The deal likely stems from the meeting that Saudi Arabia’s ruler Mohammed bin Salman had with Trump last November,” the person quoted above said.
The person indicated that the US and Saudi Arabia undertook a joint study to enable the latter to enrich uranium on its soil to produce fuel at an American-built enrichment facility, instead of relying on imported fuel. The study was a precursor to the deal that’s now been signed.
What US and Saudi have said
In their respective formal responses, both sides talked of mutual economic benefits from the pact. “Together, these two agreements (deal and safeguards agreement) lay the legal foundation for a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar partnership that advances several priority economic and strategic objectives, including nuclear nonproliferation,” the US DoE statement said. The Saudi government also issued a statement, claiming the deal “represents an extension of existing co-operation between the two countries in the energy sector”.
Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward Markey issued a statement condemning Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump, and saying that their “hypocrisy is matched only by their recklessness”.
Incidentally, Rubio, who was travelling in the Philippines when the deal was announced, asserted that “the US is not going to reach any agreement with any country in the world that leads to the risk of proliferation.”
“I’ll let the White House officials… put out an official statement about anything with regards to that (the deal). But I saw the same reporting (sic) this morning. But let me go through… Then, I’d prefer to… put out when there is something to say. We’ll say it through official channels,” Rubio said when asked by reporters in Manila about the deal.
But the deal also raises questions about a conflict of interest. The Trump Organisation has several financial dealings with Saudi Arabia and other countries in that geography. In just 2024, Trump and his family businesses raised about $50 million from documented deals connected to Saudi Arabia. This includes hospitality, casino deals and crypto interests.
What is a 123 Agreement and why does it matter?
While this deal has been in the making for more than a decade, no American president has taken the final step forward to clinch it so far. The key element of this deal is what is called a 123 Agreement that allows the US to share nuclear technology with other countries. India is one such signatory.
This agreement, named after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954, is a legally binding agreement that Washington DC requires before engaging in significant nuclear cooperation with another country. These agreements facilitate the transfer of nuclear materials, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes, while ensuring compliance with international nonproliferation standards. They also provide a framework for technical exchanges, scientific research, and safeguards discussions. This has to go through the US legislature, which could be a potential impediment, the analyst quoted earlier said.
In the case of India, the 123 Agreement signed with the US effectively ended the technology denial regimes that had been in place for three decades. The passage of this legislation in the US Congress effectively exempted the requirement, by way of Section 123(a)(2) of the US Atomic Energy Act, for full-scope safeguards as a condition for civil nuclear cooperation with India. The US Congress passed the legislation with bipartisan majority support on October 1, 2008, clearing the way for the conclusion of the landmark bilateral agreement on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Under the pact, India was given detailed fuel supply assurances in lieu of a Separation Plan incorporated in the bilateral agreement, wherein New Delhi agreed to place some of its civilian nuclear facilities under India-specific safeguards in perpetuity while getting uninterrupted fuel supply to the reactors placed under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.
The risk of proliferation
There are two other areas of the deal that have raised concerns. One is the possibility that Saudi Arabia might be able to conduct largely unfettered domestic uranium enrichment, and two, there could be some limitations on the inspections regime, different in case of this agreement than some of the other agreements signed by the US.
While US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the deal will “uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety”, the key question is how well regulated is the transfer of American nuclear technology in the Saudi pact? Also, will the safeguards ensure that this Saudi deal is strictly restricted to civil application only?
If an enrichment provision is indeed part of the pact, it would differentiate this agreement from another one that was signed by the US in 2009 with Saudi Arabia’s neighbour, the United Arab Emirates, under which Abu Dhabi does not produce its own fuel and is subject to a number of other restrictions.
The Saudi deal could also embolden Iran in its resolve to get a nuclear weapon, and potentially pivot it further towards China and Russia to attain this objective. Incidentally, Saudi Arabia’s then Crown Prince and de facto ruler, bin Salman, told CBS News in 2018 that his country was not planning to acquire a nuclear weapon, but that “without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible”.
While it is unlikely to be an open-ended deal that enables the Saudis to enrich uranium, the big concern is whether the level of safeguards provided in the pact will be sufficient to keep the Kingdom from developing a bomb. Incidentally, Israel has long warned that a deal of this kind could pave the way for Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons. So, there are larger questions for nuclear proliferation in West Asia and on the broader scale of global nuclear proliferation.
One of the key incentives cited by the US government to enter into this agreement is that it does provide opportunities for American nuclear players, particularly Westinghouse, to make significant sales to Saudi Arabia. Nuclear companies have traditionally been big donors to Trump. For Saudi Arabia, there is the potential of cutting back on its use of its own oil for electricity generation if it can take recourse to nuclear generation. But the risks that a badly drafted nuclear deal poses is also very real.
The nuclear agreement marks a big diplomatic and strategic victory for Saudi Arabia, and it has the potential to reshape power dynamics in the West Asian region. (NYT File) 
Share
