Topics: World, Energy
Amid ongoing Iran war negotiations, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in July that, if it goes through, could open the door for American companies to help build the kingdom’s nuclear infrastructure. While Congress is reviewing the agreement, President Trump and supporters of the deal are linking its implementation to Saudi normalization with Israel and see the partnership as a way to strengthen U.S.-Saudi ties, create opportunities for American nuclear companies, and ensure Washington has a central role in shaping the program.
But those skeptical see the risk of a dangerous precedent. The agreement does not categorically rule out uranium enrichment or require the strongest international inspections, raising concerns that civilian nuclear technology could eventually provide a pathway toward a weapon. U.S. assistance could weaken nonproliferation norms and encourage other regional powers to demand similar capabilities.
Would providing nuclear technology to a country that has left the door open to acquiring a bomb create the proliferation threat U.S. policy is precisely meant to prevent? Or is U.S. involvement the best way to keep Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions from becoming something more dangerous?
This debate was produced in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations on September 17, 2026, in Washington, DC.
Arguing Yes
Daniel Poneman: Former Deputy Secretary of Energy; Distinguished Fellow of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center and Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
Amos Hochstein: Former White House Senior Advisor to President Biden; Managing Partner at TWG Global
Arguing No
Sharon Squassoni: Research Professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University; Former Director of Nonproliferation and Prevention at CSIS
Joe Cirincione: Former Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Moderator-in-Chief:
John Donvan: Emmy Award-winning journalist
I am in favor of US operated civil nuclear power stations all over the globe. The claim that nuclear is much more expensive is based on estimates from old plants. Wind and solar only will never be sufficient. This is what the IAEA should be focusing on; not NPT