President Trump has approved a significant 30-year civil nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia. This decision reportedly lacks the “gold standard” restriction, traditionally preventing U.S. allies from enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium, key steps towards nuclear weapons development. This move highlights an irony, as the same administration opposed Iran’s uranium enrichment, now potentially enabling Saudi Arabia with similar capabilities.
Lawmakers have raised concerns. Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) and others urge the administration to maintain stringent controls. Representative Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) questioned the rationale behind opposing nuclear proliferation only to potentially facilitate it through a new agreement.
As these discussions unfold, the global framework of nuclear restraint is faltering. The last remaining U.S.-Russia arms control agreement, New START, expired in February. This treaty, in place for 15 years, set binding limits on nuclear arsenals and established verification mechanisms to prevent catastrophic miscalculations. With its expiration, the U.S. and Russia are without binding strategic force limits for the first time in over 50 years.
In May, the review conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a cornerstone for global disarmament efforts, concluded without a consensus. Amid this absence of protective agreements, the United States appears to support Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions, a potentially irresponsible action.
The arms control advocacy community needs to raise alarms. Groups like the Arms Control Association, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Federation of American Scientists work on risk reduction strategies. Meanwhile, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons promotes the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed by 95 countries and ratified by 74, though none are nuclear-armed states.
Despite its moral appeal, emphasis must shift towards practical measures. As arms control limits vanish, dialogues among major powers weaken, and a potential new arms race looms, efforts should focus on restoring nuclear risk reduction mechanisms. In 1983, as part of an initiative with the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Dr. Eugueni Chazov warned of nuclear conflict’s catastrophic potential. This illustrates the pressing need to reinforce public commitment to arms control agreements.
Today, Russia and the U.S. are involved in multiple conflicts, notably in Ukraine and the Middle East; the U.S. and Israel confront Iran; and tensions between India and Pakistan and China’s rapid nuclear expansion underscore global instability.
Washington’s support for a nuclear-capable state like Saudi Arabia amid current global tensions is ill-timed. Renewing binding arms control agreements must be a top priority. However, the abolition movement’s focus on complete disarmament is not realistic given major nuclear powers’ reluctance to disarm. Physicians and advocacy groups should prioritize restoring verifiable limits, inspections, and transparency while strengthening military communication channels. Successfully negotiating with nations like China for future disarmament talks is crucial.
Achieving a nuclear-free world remains a distant goal. However, these steps could enhance safety in our current nuclear-armed reality.
Irwin Redlener, a pediatrician, is a senior adviser at the Institute for Global Policy at Columbia University and The Arms Control Association. He established Columbia’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness.