(CNN) — The Middle East’s great American disruptor is rolling the dice again.
A new civilian nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia signed Wednesday encapsulates President Donald Trump’s governing philosophy.
To begin with, it’s a deal, that fabled transaction at the center of Trump’s foreign policy — and entire life.
It may also end up epitomizing Trump’s willingness to bypass international protocols and conventions that were the building blocks of a US-led global order.
And by sending a new charge of volatility through a tinderbox region, Trump is showing his taste for considerable geopolitical risk even as a previous gamble, in Iran, seems to spin out of control.
It’s quintessential Trump: Whether trying to redesign the Middle East or remodel the White House, he acts without foreknowledge of what will come next when the pieces land.
The multi-billion-dollar, 30-year deal potentially helps the kingdom build the capacity to enrich uranium. The administration is claiming this as a win on multiple fronts:
- As a deal meeting the highest anti-proliferation standards.
- As a huge boost for the US nuclear industry.
- And as the reinforcement of ties with a vital ally.
Washington has been warming up to a civilian nuclear deal with the Saudis for at least a decade, although the Biden administration appeared likely to seek stricter conditions. And if the US didn’t do the deal, competitors like China would have been happy to snap up the kingdom’s business — thereby creating their own geopolitical staging post.
“On President Trump’s agenda, the Middle East has been commerce, not conflict,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Fox Business on Wednesday.
But critics, including many in Israel, fear that agreement could eventually deliver the Saudis to the point where they could enrich higher-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb — and thereby set off a regional arms race. Riyadh says it won’t seek a nuclear weapon if Iran doesn’t. But any move in that direction might force nations like Egypt or Turkey to follow suit.
The US-Saudi deal was negotiated under a US law that allows the transfer of US nuclear technology while preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The Energy Department said Wednesday it included a bilateral safeguards agreement. This appeared to confirm reports that Saudi Arabia may not be required to sign up to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol, which would require more invasive monitoring and inspections. This could create a precedent for other powers to sidestep international restrictions as they pursue their own nuclear deals — perhaps with US adversaries — and fillet nuclear safeguards.
“The agreement itself was reckless and irresponsible, but the broader ramifications could be felt for years to come,” said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association.
John Erath, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said that any absence of IAEA standard protocols — which were included in a recent US civilian nuclear deal with the United Arab Emirates — would be “potentially a very big problem.” He told CNN’s Jim Sciutto that such standards were needed to ensure that “Saudi Arabia was not engaging in enrichment activities that would lead to nuclear weapons capability.”
Saudi deal injects new uncertainty into region as Iran war rages
The timing of the deal is also incongruous: It coincides with Trump’s latest escalation of the war on Iran, which he says is about preventing Tehran from getting a nuclear bomb. The administration hopes the deal could tilt the balance of power further towards the US by solidifying Saudi relations.
However, by implying that US friends have the right to nuclear enrichment while enemies don’t, the deal could impose intense pressure on international non-proliferation conventions and incentivize Iran to seek its own partners.
And the task of negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran was treacherous already. The administration may have made it much harder by agreeing to a deal with the Saudis that reaches years into the future because Iran is sure to demand similar enrichment privileges.
The Saudi deal is far from the first time Trump has taken a risk in the Middle East without the capacity to understand how it plays out in the years to come.
Often, his instinct to ditch existing conventions, to ignore international agreements and to take a disruptive course seems more like an end in itself.
And the president also seems to take pride in doing exactly the opposite of those who came before him.
Most modern presidents tried to avoid war with Iran; Trump tore up an international deal that capped its nuclear program, assassinated its national security chief Qasem Soleimani in his first term, bombed its nuclear sites last year and launched a full-scale war against the Islamic Republic in February.
Modern administrations concluded that the best way to keep Israel safe was to push for a two-state solution with the Palestinians; Trump gave the Israelis space to crush that aspiration with hardline policies in Gaza and the West Bank.
Trump this year pledged to remove the US designation of Syria as a major terrorist-supporting state first imposed in 1979, trusting in his friendship with the country’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, the leader of a former al Qaeda affiliate. Critics argued that Trump should have leveraged that designation change to force political, human rights and counter-terrorism reforms.
Trump has also broken the mold on Saudi Arabia. Presidents have often danced on diplomatic pinheads with the kingdom and other Gulf states, which are vital US allies but pursue repressive policies that offend democratic values. But Trump openly admires Arab strongmen and sees their rich and rising nations as a goldmine for commerce in which his family has considerable business interests.
Why Trump’s team seeks virtue in risk
Trump’s supporters correctly argue that decades of US policy in the Middle East failed to create stability. And they insist he’s taking necessary steps that previous presidents failed to take. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators Tuesday that his boss should be praised for “having the courage to ensure that crazy Islamists can’t have a nuclear weapon to hold us at issue.”
But the perils of such an approach are obvious in Iran. The US struggle to exit a war Trump has declared won multiple times helps explains why his predecessors hesitated to dive headlong into a full-scale conflict.
Democratic critics accuse the president of disregarding political, historical and ideological factors that always suggested Iran would never bow to US pressure. Trump seems not to have asked critical questions about what would follow a US onslaught — including the likelihood that Tehran would seek to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The conflict reflects a recurring theme — plans made in Washington often break down on contact with the Middle East.
While Trump and his Cabinet have strong relationships with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Washington’s ties with the kingdom may not always be as strong. There’s no guarantee the country will not fall into the hands of more radical rulers in decades to come, in a region often destabilized by Islamic fundamentalists.
This is especially a worry with nuclear programs in the mix. “A US partner today is not necessarily a US partner tomorrow. So once the technology is transferred, the US cannot guarantee that it will retain control of that technology,” Davenport said.
But Trump often seems not to worry much about what happens after he’s left office.
One of the president’s favorite phrases, “We’ll see what happens,” takes on an especially disquieting undertone in the context of the Middle East.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.