President Trump has approved a significant 30-year civil nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia. Reportedly, this deal lacks the ‘gold standard’ restriction. This restriction has prevented U.S. partners from enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium, two key components necessary for developing nuclear weapons.
The irony is palpable. The administration took action against Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program. Now, the potential exists to allow Riyadh the same ability that was denied to Tehran. Lawmakers have expressed concern. Senator Ed Markey and his colleagues have urged the administration to maintain nuclear nonproliferation standards. Representative Brad Sherman questioned the wisdom of waging war to halt Middle East nuclear proliferation while facilitating it through this agreement.
This deal emerges at a challenging time when nuclear restraint is weakening. As focus shifts towards the difficult goal of nuclear arsenal abolition, significant agreements have come to an end. In February, the New START treaty between the U.S. and Russia expired after 15 years. The treaty had legally limited the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, provided inspections, and facilitated data exchanges to reduce risks. Its expiration marks the first time in over 50 years without binding limits on U.S. and Russian strategic forces.
Additionally, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference concluded in May without a final consensus document. At this critical juncture, the absence of functional arms control agreements exacerbates the danger. Meanwhile, the U.S. assists in launching another country towards nuclear capability, an action some view as irresponsible.
Where is the arms control advocacy community, which should be sounding the alarm?
Certain organizations remain active. The Arms Control Association, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and the Federation of American Scientists focus on practical risk reduction. Conversely, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has driven global support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. While 95 countries have signed this treaty, the nine nuclear-armed states have not. This underscores the need to balance moral initiatives with practical actions.
Efforts should prioritize rebuilding nuclear risk reduction mechanisms. In 1983, while chairing a committee of Physicians for Social Responsibility, an international visit highlighted the peril of nuclear war. The mission focused on public support for negotiated limits, testing restrictions, effective communication, and accidental war safeguards. These actions helped reduce global risks.
The current situation mirrors past dangers. The U.S. and Russia are involved in conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. U.S. and Israeli forces directly confront Iran. India and Pakistan recently experienced escalating tensions, while China rapidly expands its nuclear arsenal.
Reestablishing binding arms control agreements requires urgency. While abolition is a noble goal, current conditions demand focus on achievable objectives. Physicians can play a vital role in educating on the consequences of nuclear weapon use and the limited capacity for medical response. Efforts should aim to restore verifiable limits on U.S. and Russian arsenals, rebuild transparency, preserve the global testing ban, enhance military communication, and prevent AI from influencing nuclear decisions. These steps would help make the nuclear-armed world safer.
Irwin Redlener, a pediatrician and senior adviser, highlights the need for action. He emphasizes focusing on practical, attainable goals to improve global safety.
© 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution of this material is prohibited.
Leave a Reply