PRESIDENT Trump’s approval of a 30-year civilian nuclear agreement 123 with Saudi Arabia, signed under the US atomic act (July 16, 2026) potentially enabling uranium enrichment, signals a strategic shift amid escalating US-Iran tensions. The said deal in under a 90 day review period by the US Congress, started on 22 August. Apparently the deal faces an impediment as Precedent Trump has conditioned it to KSA‘s normalization with Israel: and Riyadh disagrees to comply with this stipulation. While US pragmatists see strategic partnerships and economic benefits, arguing that if Washington does not approve the deal, Riyadh will tilt towards China and Russia; the realists warn of an arms race and escalation and pacifists fear destabilization in the region.
The agreement, known as a 123 Agreement, would allow Saudi Arabia to build nuclear reactors using US technology. It would also permit the Kingdom to enrich uranium and reprocess nuclear waste, activities that can potentially produce material for nuclear weapons. The deal, however, does not include an Additional Protocol that would allow the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to conduct more intrusive inspections at short notice. By offering Saudi Arabia a ‘nuclear umbrella,’ the US aims to counter Iranian influence, but risks destabilizing the region by encouraging proliferation. The $95 billion defense package further entrenches this alliance, redefining power dynamics across the Gulf.
Firstly, the timing of the deal has raised question in the US policy quarters as the Trump administration has actively waged a military conflict with Iran in part to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon, albeit paradoxically, advanced a multi-billion dollar deal with Riyadh, poses pertinent and bi-partisan criticism in Washington and beyond. Secondly, the realists assess the agreement through the lens of power politics. And thirdly, the pacifists condemn the agreement on arms-control and humanitarian grounds. They are arguing that escalating regional militarization, particularly without strict “gold standard” non-proliferation guardrails or comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency oversight, actively sabotages efforts to de-escalate the active US-Iran war.
Strategic Deterrence and Power Balance: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has previously maintained that the Kingdom will develop nuclear weapons if Iran acquires them. This deal grants Saudi Arabia American technology and a nuclear energy framework, inherently bringing the country closer to possessing threshold capabilities to counter Tehran. And yet, Trump’s conditioning of the deal with Saudi Arabia’s approval of the Abraham accords put the deal viability in question in so far as the Saudi official stance holds that it would not accept Israel as long as the issue of the establishment of Palestinian independent state remains unresolved.
And yet, the deal fosters a laxity in Riyadh’s uranium enrichment as initially it grants a 2 year flexibility period regarding the US-partnered domestic enrichment facility on Saudi soil. By granting Riyadh access to civil nuclear technology without strictly banning domestic uranium enrichment, the US is branding a new nuclear narrative in the region which is already in destabilized with the ongoing Houthi maritime blockades and the Houthis strikes on Saudi infrastructure, this policy shift ensures the Middle East will remain locked in a volatile web of overlapping conflicts.
Wider Security Architecture: Rather than relying purely on the nuclear deal, Riyadh is reportedly seeking a broader defensive arrangement to bolster its security. This includes potential Makkah Joint Defense Agreement (MJDA) bolstering a mega Strategic Agreement based on collective Deterrence between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey, which is gaining a unified response amid Houthis attack on KSA. Meanwhile, Riyadh is also vying for a US Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status, aerial capacity upgrades. The said deal may be distinguished with the two nuclear civil deals that the US formally forged with the UAE in 2009 and with Turkey in 2008 respectively, as both under the deal were adhered to follow the IAEA established Gold Standard.
The regional and global geopolitical impact: With Iran’s ongoing war efforts reshaping Middle East power dynamics, the deal may further pressure regional states to pursue nuclear capabilities. While the US claims it enhances security and upholds safety standards, critics argue it undermines non-proliferation efforts and reduces incentives for Iran to curb its program. Some view that this deal, based on realpolitik, could destabilize the region, deepen existing rivalries and complicate diplomatic pathways amid escalating conflicts.
Whereas, placing Riyadh under the US nuclear umbrella signals Washington’s continuity in Gulf deterrence without further sending ground troops while extending the US defense firms’ energy leverage over Chinese and Russian inroads. Its unconditional success could be a big strategic gain vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear pursuits while saving the Saudi cost to develop its own nuclear build-ups. The deal risks triggering a nuclear proliferation spiral in a volatile region already marked by proxy conflicts, undermining stability and increasing the likelihood of miscalculation or war.
In Tehran, this development could be viewed as direct escalation—viewing the deal as a counter threat to Iran geopolitical and geo-economics interests while motivating Iran towards weapons threshold at its own. And above all, for Pakistan, the impact is more delicate, keeping in view the fact that Islamabad values its historic relations with both Riyadh and Tehran. For Riyadh, though the deal — is currently limited on peaceful uses and if the US excludes Israel’s normalization clause — it may enhance Saudi Arabia’s strategic posture by enabling civilian nuclear energy development, potentially including uranium enrichment. While not explicitly aimed at military deterrence, such capabilities could indirectly support a ‘double deterrence’ strategy—deterring both Israel’s nuclear ambiguity and Iran’s regional influence.
—The writer is an independent IR & International Law analyst.
