Democratic representatives are trying to block the Trump administration’s new civilian nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia, arguing it could let the kingdom build nuclear weapons. A bipartisan group of senators wants the administration to declassify key details of the deal.
The deal would let the U.S. help Saudi Arabia build nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes. But critics fear the agreement does not have enough safeguards to stop Saudi Arabia from pursuing nuclear weapons.
Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil exporter and has long wanted nuclear power to move away from fossil fuels. The U.S. and the kingdom began talking about a civil nuclear agreement more than a decade ago.
The Deal’s Key Points
Last month, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Abdulaziz bin Salman signed a 1-2-3 agreement. Under the deal, the U.S. will help Saudi Arabia build nuclear power plants and provide nuclear fuel only through companies picked by both sides.
The two countries will also study whether Saudi Arabia can enrich uranium at home to fuel its own plants. That differs from a recent agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which banned domestic enrichment entirely.
Saudi Arabia agrees to nuclear inspections, but it is not required to sign the U.N. nuclear agency’s additional protocol of verification measures. The agreement now sits with Congress, which can block it with a joint resolution of disapproval.
Sherman’s Case Against the Deal
Congressman Brad Sherman, a House Foreign Affairs Committee member, introduced the resolution to block the deal. He argues the Saudis want a green light to move forward with a nuclear weapons program.
Sherman points to comments made by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2018 on “60 Minutes.” Bin Salman said: “Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bombs. But without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”
Sherman reads that as evidence of intent. The deal, he argues, removes too many safeguards to justify the risk.
Poneman’s Case for the Deal
Dan Poneman, deputy secretary of energy under Obama and former president and CEO of Centrus Energy Corp., argues in favor of the deal. He says you must distinguish between nuclear weapons programs and nuclear energy programs.
Poneman says the program would provide more transparency into the Saudi nuclear energy program. He notes Saudi Arabia pledged to be transparent and signed up to the 1978 Nonproliferation Act’s conditions:
- No explosives
- Prior consent to enrichment and reprocessing
- Retransfer rights
He cites a bilateral safeguards agreement praised by IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi as very similar to the additional protections of the additional protocol.
The Russia-China Warning
Poneman warns that if the U.S. does not do the deal, it will go to Russia, China, or somebody else. Those countries, he says, will not have the same level of transparency and protection against weapons proliferation.
That is the core of his argument. The U.S. deal offers safeguards and transparency; a foreign deal would not.
What the Senators Want
The senators are not taking sides on the deal itself. They want to see the details. Their request is simple: declassify the key parts of the agreement so the public can judge for themselves.
The senators are asking for transparency, not approval or rejection.
The Timeline of the Agreement
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| More than a decade ago | U.S. and Saudi Arabia begin discussing a civil nuclear agreement |
| Last month | Wright and bin Salman sign the 1-2-3 agreement |
| Now | Sherman introduces resolution to block the deal |
| Now | Senators call for declassification of key details |
The Comparison With the UAE
The deal with Saudi Arabia differs from the recent agreement with the United Arab Emirates. That agreement prohibited domestic enrichment entirely, a standard some call the “gold standard.”
Saudi Arabia’s deal allows the study of domestic enrichment, but it does not require it. The kingdom also submits to nuclear inspections without signing the additional protocol.
The Status of the Deal
The resolution is a warning shot. It tells the administration that Congress will not accept a deal that critics believe could lead to weapons.
Poneman’s warning is that rejecting the deal opens the door to Russia or China, who will not offer the same transparency.
The resolution is on the table. The declassification push is underway. And the deal itself sits with Congress, waiting for judgment.
Whether the deal survives depends on which argument wins the day. The crown prince’s words, the deal’s safeguards, and the alternatives all point in different directions.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs the administration’s plan to bring U.S. companies into Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program and is against the representatives who would keep that arrangement secret from Congress and the public. Transparency is not the same as approval, and the senators’ request for declassified details is a reasonable one.
The paper’s position is clear: power that gathers in one place, an agency, an office or a party, gets abused. Keeping the details of a major international agreement hidden from Congress and the public is a concentration of power, and the paper is against it. The administration should release the details, and the representatives pushing to block the deal without seeing them first should explain themselves.
The reader should watch for the representatives who oppose the deal but refuse to let the public see the terms they oppose. That is the real fight, and it should be judged on its own terms.
Source material: “U.S.-Saudi nuclear power deal faces pushback over potential weapons risks,” PBS.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.