A US–Saudi Nuclear Deal Must Be a Peace Deal
The Middle East is approaching another historic crossroads.
Reports that the United States and Saudi Arabia are preparing to conclude a civilian nuclear agreement have already sparked debate in Washington, Jerusalem, and across the region. Some see an economic opportunity. Others see a strategic necessity. Still others see the beginning of a dangerous new chapter in the Middle East’s nuclear history.
All three perspectives contain elements of truth.
Saudi Arabia is fully entitled to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. Every sovereign nation has the right to diversify its energy portfolio, invest in advanced technology, and prepare for a future beyond oil. The United States also has legitimate reasons to deepen its partnership with Riyadh rather than allow China or Russia to become the kingdom’s primary strategic partner.
Yet this agreement cannot be viewed through the narrow lens of economics or commercial diplomacy.
It must be judged by a far more important standard: Will it make the Middle East safer?
That question is especially relevant after years of Iranian nuclear brinkmanship, regional proxy wars, and unprecedented instability. The last thing the Middle East needs is another source of strategic ambiguity.
Civilian nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are not the same thing. But they are not completely separate either.
The technologies required to enrich uranium are inherently dual-use. Under strict international oversight they can power hospitals, industries, and homes. In the wrong circumstances—or under future governments with different intentions—they can shorten the path toward military capability.
History teaches us that nuclear infrastructure often outlives political leadership.
Governments change.
Alliances shift.
Regional priorities evolve.
Facilities built today may still exist fifty years from now under entirely different strategic conditions.
That reality should concern every responsible policymaker.
This is not an argument against Saudi Arabia.
Nor is it an argument against peaceful nuclear energy.
It is an argument for prudence.
The United States has spent decades attempting to prevent nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. It would be contradictory to weaken those standards precisely when regional tensions remain extraordinarily high.
Strong safeguards, intrusive verification, complete transparency, and meaningful limitations on enrichment should not be viewed as obstacles to cooperation. They are what make cooperation sustainable.
But there is an even greater opportunity before us.
This agreement should not simply produce electricity.
It should produce peace.
If the United States is prepared to support Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear ambitions, then the agreement should be linked to a diplomatic breakthrough that reshapes the region for generations: Saudi Arabia’s formal recognition of Israel and accession to the Abraham Accords.
That would fundamentally change the nature of this agreement.
Instead of becoming merely another nuclear cooperation treaty, it would become the foundation of a new regional security architecture.
The Abraham Accords demonstrated something many believed impossible: peace in the Middle East does not have to wait for every conflict to be resolved. Countries can choose cooperation over perpetual hostility.
The results speak for themselves.
Trade expanded.
Tourism flourished.
Scientific collaboration accelerated.
Military coordination against shared threats improved.
People who had spent generations separated by politics suddenly began meeting as partners.
Saudi Arabia possesses unique religious, political, and economic influence throughout the Muslim world.
Its decision to recognize Israel would send a message far beyond bilateral diplomacy.
It would tell hundreds of millions of Muslims that engagement is stronger than isolation, dialogue is more productive than incitement, and coexistence offers a better future than endless conflict.
As a Muslim who has visited Israel, I experienced something that surprised many people in my own community.
I was welcomed.
I met Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Baháʼís living together, debating together, working together, and building together.
Israel is not the caricature so often presented throughout much of the Middle East. Like every democracy, it has political disagreements and social challenges. But it is also a country where diversity is visible, minorities participate in public life, and vigorous debate is part of the national character.
Peace is built through human relationships, not slogans.
The greatest strategic victory against extremism will never come from another battlefield.
It will come when ordinary Saudis and ordinary Israelis begin seeing one another not as enemies, but as neighbors, business partners, researchers, students, tourists, and friends.
Extremist movements understand this.
That is precisely why they fear normalization.
Their power depends upon perpetual hatred.
Every new peace agreement weakens their narrative.
Every new economic partnership undermines their recruitment.
Every flight between Arab capitals and Tel Aviv represents another defeat for those who profit from conflict.
This moment therefore presents an extraordinary opportunity for American leadership.
Washington should not settle for negotiating only a nuclear agreement.
It should negotiate a strategic transformation.
A framework that strengthens US-Saudi relations, guarantees the strongest possible nonproliferation safeguards, protects Israel’s long-term security, expands the Abraham Accords, and creates a durable coalition of moderate nations would represent one of the most consequential diplomatic achievements in decades.
The Middle East does not simply need another agreement.
It needs a new direction.
Nuclear reactors can generate electricity.
Only courageous diplomacy can generate lasting peace.
The United States now has an opportunity to help deliver both.
