The Trump administration has approved a nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia that allows the kingdom to pursue civilian nuclear energy development, including the potential for domestic uranium enrichment. According to US officials and sources familiar with the matter, the 30-year pact—known as a “123 agreement”—facilitates the transfer of American technology and expertise, though it stops short of requiring the “gold standard” of international oversight typically associated with such deals.
The Mechanics of the 123 Agreement
Under the terms, the US will maintain oversight of sensitive technology, and the deal prohibits Riyadh from developing or purchasing enrichment technology from other nations for a decade, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. According to US officials, any future moves toward domestic uranium enrichment would require a joint US-Saudi assessment to determine commercial viability and justification.
Unlike the 2009 agreement with the United Arab Emirates, this pact does not mandate that Saudi Arabia sign the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) “Additional Protocol.” Instead, the agreement utilizes a bilateral safeguards convention. Saudi officials have historically resisted the Additional Protocol due to concerns regarding intrusive inspections of sensitive sites, such as royal palaces or holy cities. The IAEA Board of Governors must still ratify the terms of this specific arrangement.
Did you know?
The “gold standard” for nuclear agreements refers to a commitment by a partner nation to forgo domestic enrichment and reprocessing capabilities, as well as signing the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which grants inspectors broader access to nuclear facilities.
Strategic Implications and Regional Tensions
The deal arrives amid a complex regional landscape. Israel, which maintains an undeclared nuclear program, has historically expressed caution regarding Saudi access to nuclear technology. Meanwhile, Iran—Saudi Arabia’s primary regional rival—continues to operate its own nuclear program, which Tehran maintains is strictly for civilian purposes despite holding significant reserves of enriched uranium.
Dan Joyner, a professor of law at the University of Alabama and a consultant on nuclear regulation, noted that the agreement serves as a strategic maneuver for Washington. By anchoring Saudi infrastructure to American technology, the US retains leverage over regional safety and non-proliferation standards. “If the agreement fails,” Joyner told CNN, “Saudi Arabia could turn to Russia or China, giving those countries influence over key Saudi infrastructure.”
Congressional Review and Political Opposition
The agreement is now subject to a mandatory review period in the US Congress. Lawmakers retain the authority to block the deal if both the House and the Senate pass resolutions of disapproval. Opposition has already surfaced among some legislators who fear the implications for regional stability.
Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts criticized the pact, stating that it risks “enabling nuclear proliferation in Saudi Arabia and initiating an arms race in the region.” Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, raised concerns about the precedent this sets for other nations, such as Egypt or Turkey, asking what standards might be applied to their future programs.
Economic and Energy Objectives
A spokesperson for the Saudi embassy in Washington confirmed the deal, noting that it reflects a shared vision for expanding cooperation in energy and future technologies.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is a “123 agreement”? It is a bilateral pact named after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, which requires such agreements before the US can export nuclear material or technology to another country.
- Does this deal allow Saudi Arabia to build nuclear weapons? The agreement is intended for civilian nuclear energy. However, critics argue that the capability to enrich uranium, even for civilian purposes, provides a technical pathway that could theoretically be repurposed for weapons development.
- What happens if Congress disapproves? If both chambers of Congress pass a joint resolution of disapproval during the review period, the agreement cannot proceed.
Are you following the developments in global energy policy? Subscribe to our newsletter for updates on how this agreement progresses through the Congressional review process.
Worth a look