Implications of U.S.-Saudi Civil Nuclear Agreement

President Trump has agreed to a 30-year civil nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. This deal reportedly lacks the “gold standard” that prevents U.S. partners from enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium, which are key steps toward developing nuclear weapons. Notably, the same administration that opposed Iran’s nuclear ambitions seems to grant Saudi Arabia a similar capability. U.S. lawmakers, including Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), have criticized this decision, questioning the rationale behind opposing Iranian proliferation while supporting a potential Saudi program.

The timing of this agreement coincides with a period of declining nuclear restraint. In February, the New START treaty between the U.S. and Russia expired. For 15 years, it placed legal limitations on nuclear arsenals and established measures for verification and data exchange. With its expiration, there are no longer binding restrictions on U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces—an unprecedented situation in decades.

Moreover, May saw the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference ending without an agreed final document. This stalemate comes as global arms control agreements weaken. In this context, the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions, raising concerns about increasing nuclear risk.

Advocacy organizations like the Arms Control Association, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Federation of American Scientists focus on reducing nuclear risks through practical measures. Conversely, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons gathers momentum for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, though none of the nine nuclear-armed states have signed it.

Reflecting on history, in 1983, a delegation from Physicians for Social Responsibility, including Dr. Eugueni Chazov, emphasized practical steps toward reducing nuclear risk, opposing nuclear war as “the final epidemic.” Despite aspirations of total disarmament, they focused on public support for limiting nuclear arsenals, banning testing, verifying compliance, improving communication, and preventing accidental wars. These initiatives significantly contributed to global safety.

Today’s geopolitical climate is precarious, with the U.S. and Russia involved in conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, the U.S. and Israel opposing Iran, and heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. Meanwhile, China rapidly expands its arsenal, posing pressure on Taiwan, and North Korea progresses its nuclear program. In this volatile landscape, Washington’s assistance in developing Saudi Arabia’s nuclear capabilities seems ill-advised.

Renewing binding arms control agreements is crucial. However, much of the nuclear abolition movement remains preoccupied with total disarmament—a noble but currently impractical goal. Physicians, uniquely poised to communicate the consequences of nuclear warfare, should prioritize attainable objectives. These include reinstating limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, enhancing verification processes, preserving the test ban, strengthening military communications, excluding AI from nuclear decisions, and encouraging China’s involvement in arms control discussions.

While these steps may not eliminate nuclear weapons, they enhance global safety in a nuclear-armed environment. As a pediatrician and policy adviser, Irwin Redlener emphasizes the urgent need for focused and achievable measures to mitigate nuclear risks.