Critics of the nuclear agreement warn that it risks undermining decades of U.S. non-proliferation policy by failing to include the rigorous safeguards typically required for such partnerships. The primary concern centers on the potential for domestic uranium enrichment within Saudi Arabia. While the program is intended for civilian use, the ability to enrich uranium is a dual-use technology that could, in theory, be repurposed for a nuclear weapons program. Skeptics argue that by omitting the gold-standard protocols—such as the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol—the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race.
Many lawmakers and non-proliferation experts have expressed alarm that the deal lacks the strict inspections and enrichment bans that the U.S. has insisted upon in other regional agreements, such as the one with the United Arab Emirates. There is a profound concern that this inconsistency weakens the U.S. position on the global stage, particularly at a time when Washington is actively working to prevent other nations in the Middle East from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities. Critics point out the irony of the U.S. facilitating potential enrichment in one country while simultaneously opposing similar activities elsewhere in the region.
Accountability-focused observers also raise questions about the timing and transparency of the deal. They argue that the potential for profit for U.S. companies should not outweigh the long-term security risks of spreading sensitive nuclear technology. As the agreement heads to Congress, opponents are calling for a more stringent review process, insisting that any partnership with Saudi Arabia must include the same ironclad safeguards that have historically kept the world safer from the spread of nuclear weapons.