Hochstein Argues Saudi Nuclear Deal Is Essential for US Strategic Influence
A former senior Biden negotiator contends that rejecting the current US-Saudi nuclear agreement would push Riyadh toward rivals like China and Russia, despite domestic opposition.
Amos Hochstein, a former senior Middle East negotiator for the Biden administration, has publicly defended the Trump administration’s nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia. Speaking at a recent debate, Hochstein argued that the deal, which opens the door for potential uranium enrichment within the kingdom, represents the least risky option for Washington. He maintained that the United States must engage with Riyadh on its own terms to prevent the kingdom from seeking nuclear cooperation with other global powers.
The agreement has drawn sharp criticism from congressional Democrats and nonproliferation experts who fear it could serve as a precursor to a Saudi nuclear weapons program. Critics argue that the safeguards included in the deal are insufficient to prevent illicit nuclear research. However, Hochstein, who is currently a managing partner at TWG Global, countered that the current proposal grants fewer concessions than those considered during previous negotiations, positioning it as a necessary step to maintain American influence in the region.
Strategic Alternatives and Regional Rivals
According to Hochstein, the primary risk of rejecting the deal is not the potential for enrichment itself, but the loss of strategic leverage. He stated that if the United States is unwilling to compromise, Saudi Arabia would likely turn to China or Russia for nuclear technology. These alternatives, he warned, would not come with the stringent safety standards and verification protocols included in the American proposal. This shift, he argued, would allow rival nations to gain significant footholds in the global nuclear energy market while weakening the US position.
Hochstein emphasized that the US can no longer dictate nuclear terms to other nations as it did in previous decades. He noted that during the Biden administration’s negotiations, other countries actively attempted to draw Saudi Arabia away from the US by offering lower verification standards. By finalizing the current deal, the US ensures that any potential enrichment program remains under American technology, control, and verification, keeping a critical ally aligned with Washington’s strategic interests.
Scope of Enrichment and Congressional Review
Addressing concerns about the timeline and scope of the agreement, Hochstein downplayed the immediate threat of a full-scale enrichment facility. He clarified that the deal currently permits only a two-year study on the potential construction of such a facility. He argued that any further progress would require additional congressional review, a step that is not yet defined in the current terms. Consequently, he suggested that the debate over the final enrichment facility should be separated from the current negotiation process.
Even if an enrichment facility is eventually built, Hochstein stated that it would be under US terms with robust verification capabilities. He estimated that any such facility would not be operational for approximately a dozen years, providing ample time for oversight. He asserted that the best way to manage these risks is to maintain a cooperative relationship with Saudi Arabia, ensuring that the US retains the ability to verify activities and address any irregularities as they arise.
Diverse Expert Perspectives on the Deal
Hochstein’s views were presented alongside those of other experts during the event organized by the nonprofit Open to Debate. Daniel Poneman, the former deputy secretary of energy under the Obama administration, also argued in favor of the deal. In contrast, Sharon Squassoni, a former director of nonproliferation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Joe Cirincione, former president of the Ploughshares Fund, raised concerns about the implications for global nuclear safety. The debate highlighted the deep divisions within the US policy community regarding how to manage nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
The controversy underscores the complexity of balancing national security interests with nonproliferation goals. As detailed in the reporting from GN geopolitics/nuclear (en-US), the disagreement centers on whether engagement or isolation better serves US security. With congressional Democrats attempting to block the deal, the political landscape remains tense. The outcome will likely depend on the extent of congressional scrutiny and the broader geopolitical calculations regarding US influence in the region.
