• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Tristan Volpe",
    "Nicholas Miller"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Iranian Proliferation",
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Saudi Arabia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Arms Control"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Abstinence or Tolerance: Managing Nuclear Ambitions in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia took concrete steps to adopt a nuclear hedge strategy against Iran, and explore options to forestall a looming arms race in the Middle East over the buildup of nuclear latency.

Link Copied
By Tristan Volpe and Nicholas Miller
Published on Jul 5, 2018

Source: Washington Quarterly

Over the last decade, Saudi officials repeatedly hinted that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, Riyadh would be forced to respond in kind. As the late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz reportedly warned U.S. officials in 2010, “if Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia.” The following year, former Saudi Director of General Intelligence Prince Turki al-Faisal publicly stated that in the event of an Iranian bomb, “It is our duty toward our nation and people to consider all possible options, including the possession of these [nuclear] weapons.” Saudi officials made similar threats between 2013 and 2015 during the negotiations that led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5 + 1 and Iran, including declaring that Saudi Arabia would develop dual-use enrichment technology to hedge against Iran. These threats initially rang hollow: not only did the Kingdom lack both the technical capacity and economic rationale for building fuel enrichment plants—having no power reactors it needed to fuel—it also risked incurring the wrath of the international community. 

However, after the completion of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark Iranian nuclear deal, a more coherent Saudi nuclear hedging strategy came into focus. Instead of making empty threats, Saudi Arabia began to invest in its latent capacity to produce nuclear weapons by, as one analyst wrote, “building the physical infrastructure, developing the human capital, and acquiring the necessary technology for large-scale nuclear power programs,” all under the guise of an ostensibly peaceful energy diversification plan. The Saudis knew Iran would be able to mass produce and stockpile enriched uranium once the physical constraints over its uranium enrichment program expired in 15 years under the terms of the JCPOA; the nuclear deal effectively bought Riyadh, as another analyst assessed, “a decade during which they [could] continue with their nuclear push to better prepare themselves for Tehran’s rise.” As Prince Turki al Faisal admitted in January 2016, Saudi Arabia jumpstarted “a very extensive training and skills acquisition program” in the nuclear sector so that “by the time 15 years from now has passed – when supposedly [the JCPOA] will be coming to an end – we should be in full stride in terms of human capacity for our own development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.” President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the JCPOA in April 2018 only accelerated this countdown clock for the Saudis.

Over the last year, Saudi Arabia took a concrete step toward realizing this hedge strategy by soliciting bids to build the first of its 16 planned nuclear power reactors, including from the U.S.-based Westinghouse. As part of this process, U.S. officials including Energy Secretary Rick Perry met with the top echelon of Saudi leadership in December 2017 and throughout the winter of 2018 to discuss negotiations over a nuclear cooperation agreement, which is required by U.S. law in order to transfer nuclear materials, equipment, or components.

Read the article

This article was originally published in the Washington Quarterly.

About the Authors

Tristan Volpe

Nonresident Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program

Tristan Volpe is a nonresident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and assistant professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School.

Nicholas Miller

Dartmouth College

Authors

Tristan Volpe
Nonresident Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program
Tristan Volpe
Nicholas Miller
Dartmouth College
SecurityForeign PolicyNuclear PolicyArms ControlNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastSaudi Arabia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

    Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan

    For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China

    In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Commentary
    Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the Same

    Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.

      Alvin Camba

  • Commentary
    China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia

    The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.

      Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
Keck Seng Tower133 Cecil Street #10-01ASingapore, 069535
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.