From Gold Standard to Saudi Exception? The Gulf’s New Nuclear Question

How the UAE’s “Gold Standard” and Iran’s nuclear trajectory expose the strategic and non-proliferation risks of expanding civilian nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi Deal as a Test

On 22 July 2026, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement, commonly known as a Section 123 agreement, alongside a separate bilateral safeguards’ agreement. The US Department of Energy describes the arrangement as the foundation for a decades-long, multibillion-dollar partnership that would give American companies substantial access to Saudi Arabia’s emerging civilian nuclear programme (US Department of Energy, 2026). The agreement is intended to support Saudi energy demand while expanding US nuclear exports, creating American jobs, and strengthening the strategic relationship between Washington and Riyadh. It must now be transmitted to Congress for review.

The order in which these benefits are presented is revealing. The Department of Energy foregrounds exports, employment, economic growth and the restoration of America’s competitive position in the global nuclear market before turning to non-proliferation. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright presented the deal as part of an “American nuclear renaissance”, while also maintaining that it would uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and non-proliferation (US Department of Energy, 2026). This alone does not demonstrate that the safeguards are inadequate, but it shows that commercial and geopolitical competition are central to the agreement rather than secondary considerations.

The difficulty is that the agreement’s full text has not yet been made public, leaving its most sensitive provisions uncertain. Reporting indicates that the deal could permit a Saudi-based uranium-enrichment facility operated by American companies, subject to a joint two-year study (Al Jazeera, 2026). President Donald Trump subsequently suggested that domestic enrichment might be excluded and stated that cooperation would depend on Saudi Arabia normalising relations with Israel (Al Jazeera, 2026). Saudi Arabia has also reportedly not agreed to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol, although the agreement includes bilateral safeguards with the United States (Al Jazeera, 2026). The Additional Protocol matters because it grants the IAEA broader access to information and locations, allowing it to investigate possible undeclared nuclear materials and activities.

These uncertainties place the Saudi agreement at the centre of a wider non-proliferation dilemma. Uranium enrichment is necessary for producing fuel for many civilian reactors, but the same process can also produce material for nuclear weapons. The immediate question is therefore not whether Saudi Arabia has already decided to acquire a bomb. There is no evidence establishing such a decision. The more useful question is whether the agreement closes off a future weapons option or helps create the technical capacity through which that option could eventually become available.

The experiences of Iran and the UAE offer two sharply different points of comparison. Iran demonstrates how civilian cooperation, domestic enrichment, regional insecurity and deteriorating international trust can combine over time. The UAE, by contrast, accepted extensive restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing in exchange for access to American nuclear technology. Saudi Arabia will test which of these precedents now carries greater weight in US policy: strict limits intended to prevent proliferation, or greater flexibility intended to secure strategic and commercial influence.

The UAE: the “Gold Standard”

The UAE offers the clearest regional example of how civilian nuclear cooperation can be designed to limit proliferation risk. Under the 2009 US–UAE Section 123 Agreement, Abu Dhabi accepted a legally binding commitment not to enrich uranium or reprocess spent nuclear fuel within its territory. Instead, the UAE agreed to obtain reactor fuel from reliable international suppliers. The agreement also prohibits the transfer of sensitive nuclear technology and facilities, including enrichment and reprocessing equipment, while allowing only small quantities of highly enriched uranium or plutonium for limited analytical or experimental purposes. A violation of the commitment against domestic enrichment or reprocessing would give the United States grounds to terminate the agreement (US Department of State, 2009).

These restrictions distinguish between possessing nuclear reactors and controlling the more sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. Reactors can generate electricity without giving a state the domestic capacity to produce highly enriched uranium or separate plutonium. By relying on external fuel suppliers, the UAE reduced the technical infrastructure that could later support a weapons option. The arrangement also provides advance approval for spent fuel covered by the agreement to be transferred to France or the United Kingdom, further limiting the need for domestic reprocessing (US Department of State, 2009).

The UAE reinforced these bilateral restrictions by accepting stronger international verification. It signed the IAEA Additional Protocol in April 2009, and the protocol entered into force in December 2010. This expanded the information and access available to inspectors beyond the UAE’s ordinary safeguards agreement, improving the IAEA’s ability to identify undeclared nuclear materials or activities (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011).

The UAE government consequently presents its programme as a global model of transparency and non-proliferation. It emphasises its support for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, cooperation with the IAEA, and participation in international initiatives aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism and the illicit transfer of sensitive materials (UAE Embassy in Washington, DC). As this is the UAE’s own description of its policy, it should not be treated as an independent assessment. Nevertheless, the commitments on enrichment, reprocessing and international inspections are embedded in formal agreements rather than resting solely on political assurances.

The UAE model does not prove that political intentions can never change, nor does it remove every possible nuclear risk. It does, however, make a future weapons programme substantially more difficult by separating civilian power generation from domestic control of weapons-relevant fuel-cycle technologies. This is why the agreement became known as the “Gold Standard” of American civilian nuclear cooperation.

The Saudi agreement now raises the question of whether that standard will remain a regional policy or become an exception applied only to the UAE. If Riyadh receives greater flexibility over enrichment or accepts less intrusive verification, Abu Dhabi may reasonably question why it agreed to restrictions that a neighbouring power was able to avoid. A weaker Saudi agreement could therefore affect more than Saudi Arabia’s own capabilities: it could weaken the political value of the UAE model and encourage demands for equal treatment across the Gulf. This is an inference rather than evidence that the UAE intends to revise its commitments, but it illustrates why the precise terms of the Saudi agreement carry regional significance.

Iran: a Warning, not a Blueprint

Iran provides the clearest warning against assuming that the original purpose of a nuclear programme will permanently determine its political significance. In March 1957, the United States and Iran signed an agreement concerning the civilian uses of atomic energy. It permitted cooperation in the design and operation of research reactors, nuclear training, medicine and scientific research. The United States also agreed to lease Iran uranium enriched to a maximum of 20 per cent uranium-235 for use as research reactor fuel. The agreement excluded restricted weapons information and required irradiated fuel to be returned to the United States (United Nations Treaty Series, 1957).

The programme formed part of a wider American effort to promote peaceful nuclear technology among allied states. It gave Iran access to scientific knowledge, research infrastructure and technical training, but it did not amount to American assistance in constructing a nuclear weapon. A declassified draft agreement from 1978 shows that Washington was still considering an expansion of peaceful nuclear cooperation shortly before the Iranian Revolution. The draft tied future cooperation to Iran’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards (US Department of Defense, 1978).

The political conditions surrounding the programme changed radically after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Iran had joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, formally committing itself not to acquire nuclear weapons. In later decades, however, Iran developed sensitive nuclear technology outside the transparency expected by the international community. A 2007 US intelligence assessment concluded that Iran had halted organised nuclear-weapons work in 2003, while continuing to acquire nuclear knowledge and technical expertise (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023). The distinction is important: retaining the capability and expertise necessary for a potential weapons programme is not the same as having made a continuous political decision to build a bomb.

The international response eventually produced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in July 2015. Under the agreement, Iran accepted limits on the number and type of centrifuges it could operate, the level at which it could enrich uranium and the size of its enriched-uranium stockpile. It also accepted more extensive international inspections. In return, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations lifted or suspended major sanctions. Iran had a powerful economic incentive to reach the agreement: international sanctions had deprived its economy of more than $100 billion in revenue between 2012 and 2014 (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023).

The agreement initially appeared to work. In early 2016, the IAEA certified that Iran had fulfilled its preliminary nuclear commitments, after which sanctions relief began. That arrangement weakened after President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018 and reinstated banking and oil sanctions. Iran began exceeding agreed limits on its enriched-uranium stockpile in 2019. Following the US killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in January 2020, Tehran announced that it would no longer observe the JCPOA’s limits on uranium enrichment (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023).

Iran should therefore not be presented as proof that civilian nuclear cooperation inevitably leads to nuclear-weapons development. The path from the 1957 agreement to the present involved a revolution, the collapse of the US–Iranian alliance, regional warfare, secret nuclear activity, international sanctions and the later breakdown of a negotiated settlement. Describing this simply as Iran beginning a weapons programme 22 years after receiving American assistance would erase most of the causal story.

The Iranian case instead illustrates how the significance of civilian nuclear capacity can change when political intentions, security conditions and international relationships change. Knowledge and infrastructure acquired for peaceful purposes may remain long after the original partnership ends. Where a state also develops domestic enrichment capacity, the distance between a civilian programme and a potential weapons option can narrow considerably.

For Saudi Arabia, the warning is not that it is destined to repeat Iran’s trajectory. It is that safeguards negotiated under current political conditions must remain credible under future ones. American Saudi relations, the regional balance of power and Saudi perceptions of Iran could all look very different twenty or thirty years from now. The central issue is therefore whether the Saudi agreement merely supports nuclear electricity generation or also leaves Riyadh with sensitive capabilities that could acquire a different purpose during a future crisis.

What Determines Proliferation Risk? Saudi Arabia as the Test Case

The comparison between Iran and the UAE suggests that the proliferation risk of civilian nuclear cooperation lies less in the presence of reactors than in the options a programme preserves for the future. Saudi Arabia’s agreement should therefore be assessed through four connected factors: technical capacity, verification, regional security incentives and the durability of its restrictions.

The first is the degree of control Saudi Arabia would acquire over the nuclear fuel cycle. The UAE limited this risk by renouncing domestic enrichment and reprocessing, while Iran’s enrichment programme later became central to international concern over its ability to move closer to weapons-grade material. Saudi Arabia would occupy a more ambiguous position if it gained access to enrichment infrastructure without accepting the permanent restrictions imposed on the UAE (US Department of State, 2009; Council on Foreign Relations, 2023; Al Jazeera, 2026).

Even when a facility is operated or supervised by American companies, its location within Saudi Arabia could gradually expand the kingdom’s technical knowledge, trained workforce and institutional experience. These developments would not establish an intention to build a weapon. They could, however, reduce the practical barriers to pursuing an independent capability if Saudi policy changed. The long-term implications would depend on who controlled the equipment and nuclear material, how much operating knowledge was transferred and what would happen to the facility if relations between Washington and Riyadh deteriorated (Al Jazeera, 2026).

Verification is equally important. The central question is not merely whether Saudi nuclear material would be monitored, but whether inspectors could investigate activities outside those formally declared by the government. Bilateral safeguards may allow Washington to supervise American-supplied materials and technology, but their effectiveness would depend on their scope and independence. The UAE’s acceptance of wider IAEA inspection rights provides a more demanding standard against which the Saudi arrangement can eventually be assessed (UAE Embassy in Washington, DC; Al Jazeera, 2026).

Technical capacity acquires greater significance when it is combined with changing security incentives. Saudi Arabia’s current support for a peaceful programme does not guarantee that future governments will make the same calculation under different regional conditions. Saudi officials have linked the kingdom’s nuclear position to Iran, suggesting that an Iranian weapon could create pressure for a Saudi response (BBC, 2026). A major regional conflict or declining confidence in American protection could similarly increase the perceived value of an independent deterrent.

Iran illustrates why political context cannot be separated from technical capability. Its original cooperation with the United States concerned civilian nuclear research, yet the strategic meaning of its programme changed following the revolution, the collapse of the US–Iranian relationship, regional conflict and the development of domestic enrichment. The lesson is not that peaceful cooperation inevitably leads to weapons development. It is that infrastructure and expertise can outlast the political conditions under which they were originally acquired (United Nations Treaty Series, 1957; Council on Foreign Relations, 2023).

The agreement’s enforcement provisions will therefore be as important as its initial restrictions. Commitments have limited value if violations do not lead to the suspension of cooperation, the return of transferred material or the loss of access to technology. Safeguards must be designed for the possibility that relations between the two countries may become less cooperative during the agreement’s thirty-year lifespan. A system that depends primarily on continuing political trust would be least reliable at precisely the moment when proliferation concerns became most serious.

Washington must also balance enforcement against the possibility that Saudi Arabia could turn to another supplier. China, Russia, France, South Korea and the UAE have all been identified as possible alternatives (Al Jazeera, 2026). Strict American conditions might therefore reduce US influence without preventing the development of a Saudi nuclear programme. More permissive terms, however, could preserve American commercial access at the cost of weakening the non-proliferation principles applied to the UAE.

This disparity could reshape expectations across the Gulf. The UAE accepted restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing as part of its access to American nuclear cooperation. If Saudi Arabia receives comparable assistance without equivalent commitments, those restrictions may come to appear negotiable rather than integral to peaceful nuclear development. Abu Dhabi and other regional governments could then seek similar rights, gradually normalising sensitive fuel-cycle technologies across the region.

Saudi Arabia’s programme should ultimately be judged by the options it leaves available rather than by present declarations of peaceful intent. The most serious risk would emerge from the combination of growing technical capacity, incomplete verification, weak enforcement and a regional crisis that altered Saudi Arabia’s security calculations. The agreement will therefore test whether American nuclear cooperation can meaningfully restrict a future weapons option or merely postpone the moment when that option becomes politically attractive.

Bibliography

Al Jazeera Staff, AFP, & The Associated Press. (2026, July 24). Is the US-Saudi nuclear deal on, or in limbo? Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/24/is-the-us-saudi-nuclear-deal-on-or-in-limbo

BBC News. (2026). US signs landmark nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj03r59z73po

Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in Washington, DC. (n.d.). Nuclear non-proliferation. https://www.uae-embassy.org/foreign-policy/nuclear-non-proliferation

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2019, July 1). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015): Report by the Director General (GOV/INF/2019/8). https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/govinf2019-8.pdf

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2020, September 4). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015): Report by the Director General (GOV/2020/41). https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2020-41_8.pdf

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2021, November 17). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015): Report by the Director General (GOV/2021/51). https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2021-51_8.pdf

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2022, November 10). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015): Report by the Director General (GOV/2022/62). https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2022-62.pdf

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2023, November 15). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015): Report by the Director General (GOV/2023/57). https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-57.pdf

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2024, February 26). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015): Report by the Director General (GOV/2024/7). https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2024-7.pdf

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2025, September 3). Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015): Report by the Director General (GOV/2025/50). https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2025-50.pdf

Robinson, K. (2023, October 27). What is the Iran nuclear deal? Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/what-iran-nuclear-deal

U.S. Department of Energy. (2026, July 22). United States and Saudi Arabia reach historic nuclear cooperation agreement. https://www.energy.gov/articles/united-states-and-saudi-arabia-reach-historic-nuclear-cooperation-agreement

U.S. Department of State. (1978, May 17). U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation Agreement [State Department cable 125971 to Embassy Tehran, Confidential]. National Security Archive. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb268/doc31a.pdf

U.S. Department of State. (2009, May 21). Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States and Government of the United Arab Emirates Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/05/123748.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2024, October 4). Country Analysis Brief: Saudi Arabia. https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/countries_long/Saudi_Arabia/pdf/Saudi-Arabia.pdf

United Nations. (1959). Treaty Series, Volume 342: Treaties and international agreements registered or filed and recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20342/v342.pdf

United Nations Treaty Collection. (1959). Agreement for co-operation concerning civil uses of atomic energy. Signed at Washington, on 5 March 1957. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 342, No. 4898, p. 29. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028013d0ba