Trump’s Nuclear Gamble in the Middle East

The US has reached a nuclear co-operation agreement with Saudi Arabia, allowing Riyadh to enrich uranium and build reactors using American technology. However, President Donald Trump’s insistence that this deal hinges on Saudi Arabia normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords has sparked alarm among lawmakers and regional states.

Saudi Arabia has long rejected the idea of normalizing ties with Israel, citing its support for Palestinian statehood as a non-negotiable condition. This stance is unlikely to change, given the widespread opposition in some Arab countries to the Abraham Accords. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from international agreements aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East has further complicated matters.

The Abraham Accords, touted by the Trump administration as a major breakthrough in Middle Eastern diplomacy, have been met with protests in several signatory countries. These agreements have created complex diplomatic dynamics in the region, highlighting the risks of normalization without addressing underlying tensions.

Trump’s insistence on linking the nuclear deal to Israeli normalization sends a clear signal that his administration is willing to trade off strategic interests for short-term gains. This approach has significant implications for US relations with its allies and adversaries alike. The fact that the agreement does not include rigorous safeguards against uranium enrichment or access to sensitive materials has raised concerns among non-proliferation experts.

The absence of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s “additional protocol” is particularly worrying, given Saudi Arabia’s history of secretive nuclear activities. This deal could create a precedent for other countries to pursue similar agreements with the US, potentially leading to a proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology in regions where stability is already precarious.

The implications extend far beyond the Middle East itself. If successful, this deal could embolden other countries to seek similar agreements with the US, putting global non-proliferation efforts at risk. The Trump administration’s actions speak louder than its words on non-proliferation. Congress must carefully consider the long-term consequences of this high-stakes gamble in the Middle East.

China and Russia are likely to play a significant role in Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions, with both countries involved in preliminary agreements with Riyadh. China National Nuclear Corp. has submitted a bid to construct a nuclear plant in Saudi Arabia, while Russia’s state nuclear firm Rosatom has signed co-operation agreements with Riyadh. South Korea and France are also seen as potential contenders for contracts.

This competition for influence in the region highlights the risks of Trump’s approach. By linking the US-Saudi deal to Israeli normalization, he may be creating a situation where other countries can capitalize on Saudi Arabia’s growing demand for nuclear energy without having to meet the same conditions.

The Abraham Accords were meant to be a crowning achievement of Trump’s Middle East diplomacy, but they have proven highly unpopular among some signatory countries. The fact that Trump is now willing to link the US-Saudi nuclear deal to Israeli normalization highlights his administration’s willingness to trade off strategic interests for short-term gains.

This approach is misguided and potentially disastrous for long-term stability in the region. As a country, we should be committed to non-proliferation as a core principle of our foreign policy, rather than treating it as a bargaining chip to advance other interests.

The US-Saudi nuclear deal has far-reaching implications that extend beyond the Middle East itself. If successful, it could create a precedent for other countries to pursue similar agreements with the US, potentially leading to a proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology in regions where stability is already precarious.

As the clock ticks down on the 90 session days remaining before the deal takes effect, lawmakers would do well to carefully consider the long-term implications of such a high-stakes gamble in the Middle East. The future of non-proliferation efforts and regional stability hangs precariously in the balance.