The United States signed a nuclear cooperation deal with Saudi Arabia that drops the Israeli normalization requirement the late Sen. Lindsey Graham spent his final weeks defending, and critics on the right and left say the agreement could hand Riyadh a path to enriching uranium with almost no safeguards.
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman signed the pact, known as a 123 Agreement, on Wednesday, clearing the way for Saudi Arabia to build a nuclear power plant with American help. The deal, worth tens of billions of dollars to U.S. companies, is expected to last 30 years and would allow a joint U.S.-Saudi team to study whether uranium enrichment on Saudi soil is warranted and commercially viable. Only after that study would Americans build the enrichment facility, and Washington says it would not transfer the sensitive technology itself to the kingdom.
But the deal's critics, a bipartisan group that stretches from the Zionist Organization of America to Senate Democrats, say the agreement lacks basic protections. The International Atomic Energy Agency's standard monitoring, inspections, and verification protocols are apparently absent from what was announced. And the condition that previous administrations attached to any such cooperation, that Saudi Arabia first normalize relations with Israel, is nowhere in sight.
The late South Carolina Republican had made the link between Saudi nuclear cooperation and Israeli normalization a personal cause. Before his death, Graham said he planned to oppose any regional deal with Iran that did not include Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords. He wrote that he would "never support" such a deal. Axios reported that Graham spent his final weeks laying the groundwork for a renewed push to broker a historic Saudi-Israeli normalization agreement.
Former President Biden had also conditioned nuclear cooperation on Saudi normalization with Israel, Newsmax noted, citing reporting from The Times of Israel and The New York Times. That condition is now gone. Friends of the senator have said Graham would not have supported the current deal.
On March 9, Graham posted on X questioning the entire basis of the U.S.-Saudi security relationship:
"Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions to dislodge the terrorist Iranian regime that threatens the region. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia seems to be issuing statements and doing things in the background that are marginally helpful, but unwilling to participate in military operations to end the reign of terror coming out of Iran."
Graham's seat now belongs to his sister, Darline Graham Nordone, who took the oath to fill it. Whether she carries forward his position on the Saudi deal remains to be seen.
Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, issued one of the sharpest criticisms. He said the agreement opens the door for "an unstable Middle East nation potentially obtaining nuclear weapons."
"The U.S.-Saudi deal for a 'civilian' nuclear program, which potentially, after a two-year study, includes permitting Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium, is a serious mistake."
Klein warned the deal would "lead to widespread nuclear proliferation."
Syndicated radio host Mark Levin was blunter. He posted on X: "25 years ago this 9/11 Saudi Arabia was behind the [killing] of thousands of Americans. No nuke deals with Saudi Arabia."
Graham himself had been deeply invested in Israel's security up to the end of his life. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later disclosed Graham's last words to him, revealing a final conversation centered on preserving U.S. aid to Israel.
The opposition is not limited to American voices. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called the agreement "a grave strategic failure that endangers our security."
"Allowing uranium enrichment on Saudi soil could trigger a regional nuclear arms race and lead to a highly dangerous loss of control."
Former Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman told The Times of Israel that "everyone needs to understand that the Saudi civilian nuclear program will end up with nuclear weapons and lead to a mad arms race across the entire Middle East." Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, reported that Israeli sources warn the enrichment provision could spur regional proliferation if Washington ultimately allows Riyadh to enrich uranium on its own soil.
The depth of Israeli concern was evident even before this deal. When Graham died, Israel's Knesset halted proceedings and stood in silence, a tribute that underscored how closely Jerusalem had relied on the South Carolina senator as a voice for its security interests in Washington.
NBC News reported that Congress will be required to vote on the agreement, but lawmakers would need a veto-proof majority to block it. That is a high bar. Congressional sources cited in the commentary noted that the Saudis do not have strong support among either Democrats or Republicans, but opposition and the votes to override are two different things.
Sen. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat, framed the problem in terms that would sound familiar to any conservative skeptic of Riyadh:
"We can't hand Saudi Arabia the keys to nuclear tech while ignoring its desire for nuclear weapons."
Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax that caution is warranted. "We have to keep a very careful eye on Saudi Arabia," he said. "It is a friend today but was an enemy in the past. We should be concerned about its status in the future."
Graham had spent his final days not only on the Saudi question but on a broader set of unfinished foreign-policy priorities. He was in Kyiv pushing Russia sanctions on the last day of his life, leaving Congress with a stack of work that no single successor has picked up.
Several basic facts remain unclear. The agreement's text has not been made public, and it is not certain whether the 123 Agreement as signed explicitly permits uranium enrichment or only permits the two-year study of its viability. The distinction matters: one is a door ajar, the other is a door opened.
Which U.S. companies stand to benefit from the tens of billions of dollars in contracts has not been disclosed. Whether the IAEA will eventually be brought in for monitoring, or whether the deal was structured to avoid that oversight, is also unresolved. The Associated Press reported the deal's 30-year duration and the involvement of U.S. companies, but specifics remain thin.
Saudi Arabia has consistently resisted U.S. efforts to get it to join the Abraham Accords, the normalization framework that brought Israel into diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. The kingdom's refusal to normalize with Israel was the reason Graham, Biden, and others had insisted on tying any nuclear cooperation to that condition. Removing the condition without obtaining the concession is a one-sided concession by Washington.
The deal's supporters point to the commercial benefits and the strategic logic of keeping Riyadh inside an American-built nuclear framework rather than watching the Saudis turn to China or Russia. Those arguments may have merit. But the critics are asking a simpler question: what did the United States get in return?
Lindsey Graham knew the answer he wanted, Saudi recognition of Israel, full stop. Washington signed the deal without it. The senator who would have fought it hardest was no longer there to object.
