Concerns Over U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal Amid Global Arms Control Challenges

President Trump has approved a significant civil nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia, reportedly without the gold standard restriction, which traditionally prevents U.S. partners from uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing. These processes are critical pathways to developing a nuclear bomb. This decision raises questions as the administration, which opposed Iran’s nuclear ambitions, now appears to facilitate a similar capability for Saudi Arabia. Lawmakers have expressed their concerns. Senator Ed Markey and others have insisted that the administration maintain strict nonproliferation standards. Representative Brad Sherman questioned why the U.S. would hinder Middle Eastern proliferation while aiding it through profitable deals.

This decision comes at a time when nuclear restraint frameworks are deteriorating. In February, the U.S.-Russia New START treaty, the last active arms control agreement, expired. For 15 years, it enforced limits and verification measures on nuclear arsenals. Its expiration has left these nations without any binding regulations for their strategic arsenals for the first time in over 50 years. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference also ended without consensus on its future document. This is a crucial moment, as the absence of stringent arms control agreements coincides with the U.S.’s involvement in another nation’s nuclear ambitions.

A few organizations continue to advocate for nuclear risk reduction. The Arms Control Association, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and the Federation of American Scientists are actively involved in practical measures. Conversely, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has gained momentum for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. While signed by 95 countries and ratified by 74, none of the nuclear-armed states have participated. This does not undermine its significance, but shifts focus. As binding limits vanish, inspections fail, and dialogues between major powers dwindle, there is a need to emphasize rebuilding mechanisms for nuclear risk reduction.

In 1983, as part of Physicians for Social Responsibility, I visited Leningrad with colleagues from the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Dr. Eugueni Chazov, a founder, warned that nuclear war would be the final epidemic. Although eliminating nuclear weapons was desirable, we focused on practical solutions like building public support for negotiated limits and improving communication and safeguards. These initiatives secured a safer world.

Current global tensions are worrisome. The U.S. and Russia are engaged in conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. The U.S. and Israel confront Iran directly. India and Pakistan had a tense confrontation last year. China is rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities, while North Korea develops its programs. Introducing another nuclear-capable nation in a volatile region is concerning. Prioritizing new arms control agreements is crucial now. The goal of total disarmament is commendable but unattainable now. Physicians are uniquely positioned to communicate the catastrophic medical repercussions of nuclear conflict. It’s time to focus on achievable objectives such as restoring U.S.-Russia arsenal limits, increasing inspection and transparency, maintaining global testing bans, enhancing military communications, keeping AI away from nuclear decisions, and working towards engaging China in negotiations. These actions won’t eradicate nuclear weapons but will create a safer world.

Irwin Redlener, a pediatrician, is a senior adviser at the Institute for Global Policy at Columbia University and the Arms Control Association. He founded Columbia’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness.