Trump Ties U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal to Israel

President Donald Trump formally submitted a U.S.-Saudi civil nuclear agreement to Congress for review this week. The deal's implementation is now explicitly tied to Saudi Arabia normalizing diplomatic relations with Israel, a condition that could stall it indefinitely.

According to the source, this linkage was inserted by Trump "at the last minute," as described by former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Michael Ratney. The move has thrown the agreement into uncertainty. Riyadh demands a clear pathway toward Palestinian statehood before normalization, a condition Israel is "dead set against."

Trump's decision to submit the agreement for congressional review adds further confusion. The president appears to be signaling to Riyadh that the deal is moving forward while simultaneously assuring Tel Aviv it is contingent on normalization.

A Deal Without the 'Gold Standard'

The nuclear agreement is designed to meet Saudi Arabia's domestic energy needs under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's economic plan. It would allow American companies to compete for a central role in developing the kingdom's nuclear infrastructure. Supporters argue access to the Saudi nuclear market could generate tens of billions of dollars in business and thousands of American jobs.

Washington is concerned that refusing Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions could push Riyadh toward Russia or China, which may offer cooperation with fewer nonproliferation restrictions. Saudi Arabia has already solicited bids from Russian, Chinese, French, and South Korean companies to build its first two nuclear power reactors, showing its plans are not dependent on U.S. participation.

Trump appears prepared to relax some nonproliferation conditions. The signed agreement does not include the International Atomic Energy Agency's Additional Protocol, which requires full inspections of all nuclear sites and mandates forgoing fuel technologies usable for weapons production. The 2009 U.S. nuclear deal with the United Arab Emirates, which required the Additional Protocol and a commitment to forgo domestic enrichment, is considered the "gold standard."

No such standards exist in the Saudi deal. Critics warn the safeguards are insufficient to prevent future Saudi enrichment or weapons development. The two countries plan on using a "black box" approach, where enrichment technology is physically sealed and inaccessible to Saudi personnel. Although Trump stated "there would be no enrichment," nothing in the deal makes this permanent.

Israeli Opposition and Influence

Israeli leaders immediately criticized the deal, claiming it would allow Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons threatening Israeli security. Former defense minister Avigdor Lieberman warned it could lead to a regional nuclear arms race and called on Israel to lobby Congress to stop it.

Trump responded the next day on Truth Social by declaring Saudi Arabia would have to join the Abraham Accords to keep the agreement moving, an announcement welcomed by Israelis. His willingness to jeopardize a deal he appears to want by introducing an Israel-related condition indicates the influence of Israeli preferences on his decision-making, according to the source.

Saudi officials view the nuclear agreement as mutually beneficial and have pushed to separate it from normalization with Israel. The 90-day congressional review period has now begun. Unless Congress passes a joint resolution rejecting it, the agreement can take effect without an affirmative vote.

Opposition is not limited to Israel. The nonproliferation community and lawmakers from both parties have raised independent concerns about enrichment and the deal's safeguards. Four congressional Democrats pointed out last month that Trump launched war on Iran to prevent uranium enrichment yet is prepared to grant Saudi Arabia the means to do the same.

Trump's decision leaves the agreement's future uncertain, tied to a normalization that remains unlikely under current Saudi and Israeli positions. Whether it ultimately survives may depend on which strategic relationship the administration values more.