Unlike the 2009 agreement with the United Arab Emirates that set the regional benchmark, it does not bind Riyadh to forgo enrichment and reprocessing, nor does it require the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol. For a region that India watches closely for its energy security and the welfare of a large diaspora, the deal marks a consequential shift in the terms on which the United States is prepared to support sensitive nuclear cooperation.

The agreement does not resolve the question of enrichment that has divided the two governments for more than a decade; rather, it postpones the resolution. A joint two-year study is to assess whether enriching uranium inside Saudi Arabia is commercially justified. Should it conclude in favour, American companies would construct the facility under a ‘black box’ arrangement, whereby the kingdom would operate the plant without gaining access to the sensitive technology; should Washington decide against, Riyadh would be barred for 10 years from pursuing enrichment independently or with any other supplier.[3]

The mechanism is neither novel nor dependable. The Eurodif consortium of the 1970s allowed the Shah’s Iran to invest in enrichment without acquiring the technology, only for the arrangement to collapse after the revolution; and it was from within the URENCO consortium that A.Q. Khan obtained the centrifuge designs that later seeded programmes in Pakistan, Libya, Iran and North Korea.[4] Such schemes separate ownership from control only as far as governance and sustained oversight allow.

A day after the signing, President Donald Trump declared that there would be no enrichment, that the deal covered only non-military use, and that it was now contingent on Saudi accession to the Abraham Accords and formal relations with Israel, a condition absent at the unveiling and one Riyadh has consistently declined without a credible path to Palestinian statehood.[5] The agreement must still be transmitted to Congress, which has 90 days of continuous session to review it; overturning it would require a joint resolution of disapproval carried by a two-thirds, veto-proof majority.[6]

A Retreat from the Gold Standard

The benchmark against which all this is measured is the 2009 US–UAE agreement, long regarded as the ‘gold standard’. Abu Dhabi renounced enrichment and reprocessing outright and accepted the Additional Protocol, and Washington reserved the right to terminate cooperation should the UAE ever enrich or reprocess on its territory.[7] That model has since been vindicated in practice: the four-unit Barakah plant now supplies roughly a quarter of the UAE’s electricity, demonstrating that a large civil programme can run entirely on imported fuel.[8]

Saudi Arabia has taken the opposite course. It has consistently refused the gold standard, rescinded its Small Quantities Protocol in 2024, and implements a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA but not the Additional Protocol, which the new deal does not require.[9] In its place,........

© IDSA