The Bomb You Don’t Build: Nuclear Latency in the Middle East
Nuclear Latnecy Technological Sovereignty and Strategic Deterrence in the Arab Middle East
Nuclear latency in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is not a step on the path towards nuclearization but a mid- to long-term equilibrium state. It argues that both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have framed their own deliberate latency postures, which is the simultaneity of technological sovereignty and deterrent value, while not crossing the line of becoming nuclear powers, using the concepts of Levite (2003) on the latter, Narang (2022) on the former, and Mehta and Whitlark (2017) on the “virtual deterrence dividend,” and the “atomic leverage” of Volpe (2017).
Egypt's strategy is defensive and institution-oriented: civilian infrastructure is built under the direction of the IAEA and the legitimacy and moral authority of the NPT is carefully maintained. Saudi Arabia's stance is more forceful, with its enrichment ambitions made explicit and Iran-conditionality as a tool for regional signaling and great power leverage. Most significantly, civilian nuclear technology is both civilian and military, and both programs create inherent latency as a built-in aspect of civilian development, as seen most clearly by Wohlstetter (1979) and Fitzpatrick (2014). Both programs continue to be NPT-compliant, and neither is within the scope of existing non-proliferation instruments.
Non-proliferation regime must be conceptually modernised to address the capacity to be legally “visible” but not institutionally “registered” and that there are three directions for reform: systematic IAEA monitoring of “threshold” indicators, breakout-risk conditionality in 123 Agreement frameworks, and a revived Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ) process.
In March 2018, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made it clear: “If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, we will do the same in the near future” (Nasr, 2018). The comment was picked up and read as a growing threat to proliferation, which it was not. It wasn't a bomb building announcement, it was a conditional statement, a public statement of the reasoning behind Saudi Arabia's nuclear posture in general. The grammar of latency is just that: it's a capability that we have but don't use, an optionality that we don't take advantage of the threshold that we're getting closer to but not quite reaching.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was signed in 1968 and came into force in 1970, and it appears to be a binary in which there are nine states with nuclear weapons, and 181 states that have pledged in a treaty to abandon them. The third category, between these poles, was not contemplated by the treaty. A latent nuclear state has the technical infrastructure, fissile material pathways, and human capital to make a nuclear weapon in a short time but has not decided to make one. This is a waystation for some states, and it is a destination for others, as this essay will make clear.
The current proliferation literature has focused on the decisions to acquire and to reverse course from such acquisition – that is, why states seek the bomb and why some eventually do turn around (Sagan 1996; Hymans 2006; Narang 2022). Much less attention has been paid to the question of what makes states sit on the threshold. In this essay, I will fill that void by comparing two states, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which are both strategically important in their nuclear programs, the latter of which is not a weapons program. Based on the theoretical perspectives of political science and science and technology studies (STS), it posits that both states have created intentional latency postures as strategic end-states, and that the non-proliferation regime, as it stands, is not equipped with the conceptual language or institutional means to control these postures. The essay consists of the following parts: theoretical framework, two case studies, comparative analysis, counterarguments, critique of the regime, and conclusion.
1 . Theoretical Framework: Latency, Hedging, and the Dual-Use Dilemma
Nuclear Latency and Hedging
The term nuclear hedging was coined by Ariel Levite (2003) to refer to "the middle ground between rollback and acquisition" in which states advance the infrastructure they would need to make nuclear weapons if they wished to do so but refrain from actually producing them. It is important to retain the distinction of terms here. Hedging is an intentional political ambiguity, kept as a strategy. Latency, on the other hand, can occur as a side effect of civilian infrastructure development, but not necessarily with intent. The analytical difference may be of importance since it helps to focus on the use of a capability rather than a state's capacity. This essay considers both Egypt and Saudi Arabia as hedging states, that is, states in which latency is not accidental, but intentional.
A complementary framework is given by the proliferation strategies proposed by Vipin Narang (2022). He separates “technical hedgers” (states that are investing in capabilities that could be reversible if certain nuclear activities ever resume) from “insurance hedgers” (states where such capability is held as a hedge against a specific regional adversary's actions). Egypt is most similar to the former. Saudi Arabia has been a clear case of Iran-conditionality, so it is the latter. These are active postures and include the deliberate buildup of technical conditions to allow the weapons option to remain open without commitment to treaty obligations.
One of the fundamental ideas behind latency analysis is breakout time: the time that a state would expect to take to create weapons-grade fissile material after a political decision to weaponize. The political implications of enrichment capability cannot be divorced from the potential conversion time of civilian facilities to military use, as pointed out by Fitzpatrick (2014). In this context, “latency” is not a binary property, but one of time: The closer civilians and weapons usable material are in time, the greater the deterrent effect. A State that has a large enrichment plant is not just a civilian energy producer, it is a State for which the breakout timeline is potentially weeks long, not years.
Mehta and Whitlark (2017) offer valuable empirical insights into the conditions that give rise to state postures. They examine the Fuhrmann-Kroenig data set and conclude that the United States extends much more military and economic assistance to latent nuclear powers than to those that lack the capability, which they call a “virtual deterrence dividend” that implies that being a latent nuclear power, without actually weaponizing, has measurable consequences on great power behavior. Volpe (2017) further argues that “atomic leverage” – the intentional application of nuclear latency as a political tool for obtaining concessions from more powerful states – has also been a feature of the nuclear history of the United States. All of these frameworks imply that the threshold is the strategic end point, not the weapons program that could be built.
Technological Sovereignty and the Dual-Use Dilemma
Political science views of latency emphasize the calculation of security. Studies of science and technology (STS) provide an alternative perspective, one that is able to illuminate the connection between nuclear programs, state legitimacy, and national identity that security-oriented studies rarely do. Albert Wohlstetter (1979) was one of the first to document in a systematic manner the nearness of the civilian nuclear fuel cycle to the weapons capable nuclear fuel cycle. Enrichment at the low end of the spectrum is not categorically different from enrichment at the weapons grade: The difference will be in centrifuge staging and time; not physics. They are the same centrifuges that can be used to make low-enriched uranium for use in reactors that can be reconfigured to make highly enriched uranium for use in weapons. This technical continuity is not a side effect but a key structural component to make latency strategically meaningful.
The key problem in the NPT's verification regime is the proximity. The technology in the area of energy sovereignty – enrichment and reprocessing – is the very technology that creates latency, and Article IV of the treaty ensures that the technology is developed for peaceful purposes (NPT, 1968). The governments of all the MENA countries have been taught to interpret Article IV as a valid instrument for the degree of capability they find strategic. Civilian facilities are also used for multiple purposes, including military, which can help states portray their programs as peaceful, thereby minimizing institutional oversight and external analysis of intent (Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], 2023).
Political legitimation for this logic is provided by the technological sovereignty. In many postcolonial states the introduction of elaborate nuclear technology has become an indication of modern statehood; a claim to scientific and industrial independence of substance, and of domestic resonance, without any security calculation. The civilian nuclear development in Egypt is presented as energy independence and in Saudi Arabia, as sovereign fuel-cycle ambition.
These framings are not purely rhetorical. They are manifestations of real state interests that are aligned to, and reinforce, the security logic of latency — transforming the dual use issue from a technical difficulty for the non-proliferation regime into a very political one. To grasp this dual legitimation, security value and domestic identity value, is crucial to the explanation of why many latency postures are so hard to dislodge by relying exclusively on purely technical non-proliferation instruments.
Egypt and the Long Arc of Latency
Technical Trajectory: From Atoms for Peace to El-Dabaa
The nuclear story is one of the oldest in the MENA region for Egypt. The Atomic Energy Establishment was established following the 1961 Eisenhower administration's Atoms for Peace program, and from the very start the program had an implicit security aspect: In the early 1960s, after learning about Israel's secret construction of the Dimona reactor, Nasser's government started exploring the possibility of acquiring weapons (Walsh, 2010; NTI, 2025). The drive for military strength was reduced after Egypt lost the Six-day War of 1967. The signing of the NPT in 1968 and its ratification in 1981 didn't represent a commitment to disarmament, but rather a strategic assessment of the need to facilitate nuclear cooperation agreements (NTI, 2025; Federation of American Scientists [FAS], 2012).
This was a time when the technical bases of Egypt's modern-day lateness stance were established. The two research reactors -- the Soviet-supplied ETRR-1 (2.2 MW, 1961) and the Argentine-supplied ETRR-2 (22 MW, 1997), both at the Inshas facility -- trained a generation of qualified nuclear scientists, engineers and materials research scientists, but not as weapons production infrastructure (Walsh, 2010). From an STS perspective, this is what happens when you do not weaponize: gradual, everyday institutional development processes take place during the construction of technical capacity, training of personnel, and the incorporation of nuclear knowledge into the national research infrastructure. This human capital resource is not an accident or a consequence of Egypt's latency; it's its foundation.
One of the most important changes in Egypt's attitude is the intergovernmental agreement reached in 2015 between President el-Sisi and President Putin regarding the construction of the nuclear power plant in El-Dabaa (Nuclear Power Plants Authority [NPPA], 2015). The project consists of four pressurized water reactors (PWRs) of the VVER-1200 Generation III+ type, all of which are expected to have a power of 1,200 MW, or about half of Egypt's existing installed power generation capacity (Power Technology, 2023; ESI Africa, 2025). The work on Unit 1 is progressing well, with the installation of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) completed in 2025, with about 25,000 workers on site (ESI Africa, 2025; WNA, 2025). The total cost of the project is projected at $28-30 billion, with 85% coming from Russian funding and the project expected to go into operation around 2028 (ESI Africa, 2025).
This infrastructure has a significant dual use aspect. Four VVER-1200 reactors require extensive expertise in the field of the fuel cycle, which includes knowledge of the reactor physics, thermal hydraulic design, radiation protection and fuel handling, and an extensive and technically highly qualified staff. This, from a Wohlstetter (1979) point of view, is not only energy capacity being constructed, but the very same human capital and institutional knowledge that would be needed for any future weapons-related endeavor. Rosatom has pledged to provide fuel for the plant's service life, and technical support for 10 years (Rosatom, 2023). This is a framework for continuing learning transfer that will be future-proofed by the fact that the engineers who Egypt sends to run El-Dabaa will continue to do so whether there are future shifts in the bilateral relationship from a political or commercial perspective. When knowledge of this type has been built up, it cannot be rescinded.
The WMDFZ Strategy: Latency as Political Leverage
However, the most advanced application of Egypt's latency is not technical but diplomatic, as it has been relentlessly campaigning for a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ). In 1974, Egypt joined Iran in presenting a proposal to create a nuclear-weapon-free zone to the UN General Assembly, and has been a strong advocate of extending this idea at every NPT Review Conference since (NTI, 2025). During the 2010 Review Conference, Egypt was instrumental in obtaining a pledge to convene a WMDFZ Conference in 2012, which was later withdrawn by the United States, United Kingdom and Canada.
The rationale of this strategy is not obvious. At the same time, Egypt promotes a WMDFZ, on the premise that Israel has to denuclearize, and it is developing civilian nuclear facilities that maintain its own nuclear potential. There is no contradiction in these posts. Egypt places the responsibility for latency in the hands of the Israeli people by demanding that Israel disarm first. The logic of Egyptian latency would fall apart if Israel were to disarm, however, the verification structure that would ensue would be mutual and binding to both. As long as Israel is not a member of the NPT, Egypt has not lost the moral high ground of non-proliferation, nor has it lost its threshold option. It's a position that costs the least but is most strategically flexible.
This is supported by Egypt's failure to ratify the Additional Protocol. The ratification would give the IAEA significantly more access to inspect and would make the nuclear deal more transparent and reduce the ambiguity that is important for deterrence. This is the sort of situation that Fitzpatrick (2014) portrays: the political utility of a capability associated with enrichment is related, in part, to the uncertainty that can be induced in the minds of potential adversaries. A state that does everything to be transparent suffers from losing part of that value. It is therefore the decision of a state having made a considered choice to remain at the threshold, not as a transitional step, but as a lasting strategic end-state, to remain non-ratifying.
Saudi Arabia and the Architecture of Coercive Latency
Technical Infrastructure and the Fuel Cycle Ambition
Saudi Arabia's nuclear program is newer than Egypt's but growing at a different rate to present a distinct set of non-proliferation concerns. In 2010, a nuclear power development coordinating body was set up under the name of Kingdom Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE) under a larger energy diversification initiative (WNA, 2025). There is active competition for two large power reactors, with bids from Chinese, French, South Korean, Russian, and American companies (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2024). A low-power research reactor of 30 KWt is also being developed at King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), Riyadh, with INVAP, Argentina, contracted for human capacity development, similar to the previous experience of INVAP with Egypt (WNA, 2025).
Proliferation analysts have paid less attention to Saudi Arabia's uranium geology than is warranted. Since the 1960s, prospecting has led to the discovery of major deposits, and a recent survey identified 550 km² of prospects, from which industry estimates put the amount of recoverable uranium at more than 90,000 tonnes. In January 2025, the Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman announced plans to start domestic uranium mining, yellowcake production and export publicly (Saudi Mining Consulting, 2026). An independent study by a group of scientists estimated that the phosphoric acid industry alone could generate 447–596 tonnes of natural uranium per year (Ud-Din Khan et al., 2024). Wohlstetter's (1979) dual-use model can be directly applied here: the indigenous uranium resources and the countries' interest in enrichment and in building reactors form the entire front end of a nuclear fuel cycle. Each of the elements is civilian. Their mix is inherently unclear, without a nuclear non-proliferation mechanism to evaluate.
The most clear-cut sign of intentional delay is Saudi Arabia's steadfast opposition to Washington's preferred conditions for a 123 Agreement on nuclear cooperation. The Obama and Trump administrations have both stalled over one demand by the Saudi capital: the right to domestic enrichment. In 2019, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman made it clear: “We want to have the uranium, we want to enrich it and of course, we want to use the uranium” (CRS, 2024). The UAE has no plans to accept the “gold standard” enrichment-and-reprocessing waiver that Saudi Arabia rejected in its 2009 deal. Early in 2026, it was reported that the terms had been slightly adjusted, but that key nonproliferation obligations were not restored (Arms Control Association [ACA] 2026). China has filled part of the ensuing diplomatic void; the Saudi Geological Survey has signed up enrichment-free cooperation deals with Chinese partners (The Loop, 2025).
The Iran Security Dilemma and the Pakistan Dimension
The first thing one should notice about Saudi Arabia's latency position compared to Egypt is that Saudi Arabia is instead being overtly transparent. The Saudi capital has made it clear that its nuclear calculations are subject to Iranian behaviour – a tactic it hopes will affect Tehran's decision-making process and that will also enable it to enjoy security guarantees and technology transfers from Washington and Beijing. It wasn't a rhetorical miscalculation from the point of view of MBS, it was a policy call – one that struck a chord in Washington and Tehran. This is Volpe's (2017) atomic leverage in its purest form: to accelerate diplomatic negotiation by making an escalation threat, while staying just short of making it a reality.
Saudi Arabia's decision to exit the Small Quantities Protocol, which previously allowed it to reduce its safeguards commitments, sounds like it would be the wrong move for a country that wants things left to chance, but is a perfect symptom of coercive latency. Full comprehensive safeguards offer the regulatory certainty necessary for commercial reactor development, and international protection for capability building. Ironically, the Small Quantities Protocol had been limiting Saudi nuclear ambitions more than it had uncovered them, as one analysis put it: “Removing the Small Quantities Protocol 'legitimises' its nuclear activity, and provides cover for capability development'” (House of Saud Analysis, 2026; ACA, 2024). Instead of concealing its program, Saudi Arabia is being transparent in a selective way, making it visible where its visibility works in its favour, by giving legitimacy, but not giving it to the extent of supplying it to the extra monitoring it would not want to get subjected to and which limits its strategic options.
There's another aspect to Saudi latency, which is largely overlooked, regarding the relation with Pakistan. During the 1980s, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) reputedly supplied approximately $1.5 billion for Pakistan's nuclear programme (Cirincione et al., 2005; CSIS, 2025). This financial deal has fostered a long-running assumption that the nation is getting a pact to provide its own security — either technology, materials or a deployable warhead within a time frame that is shorter than the nation itself could be ready.
If true, it's a form of “latency by proxy”: delegating the most technically complicated aspects of the weapons option to a known nuclear nation. Importantly, this would be done without it being counted in any typical inventory of the Saudi domestic nuclear infrastructure. The IAEA cannot protect a warhead that hasn't landed on Saudi soil yet and export control regimes can't monitor a deal agreed to years ago. The Pakistan dimension also means that the effective threshold on Saudi Arabia might well be a lot more advanced than the technical capacity alone suggests — and that the current set of non-proliferation instruments is measured on the wrong scale.
Comparative Analysis: Two Models of MENA Latency
In the NPT regime, there are two different types of nuclear latency: those demonstrated in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Egypt has a strategy of institutional latency: civilian nuclear facilities are built with IAEA oversight, options for strategic value take time to build, and ambiguity is maintained, without challenging the status quo. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is engaged in coercive latency – enrichment goals are openly stated and threshold status is treated as a diplomatic instrument to affect regional affairs – which is like Levite's (2003) notion of “hedging.”
The differences aside are both dependent on the dual-use potential of civilian nuclear power. The skills, facilities, and material required for peaceful nuclear programs also create latent weapons programs, as Wohlstetter (1979) has pointed out. This poses a problem to the NPT. The treaty does not mention much about the threshold capabilities below the weapons line, and Article IV allows access to peaceful nuclear technology while Article II forbids the weaponization. This consequently results in the legal regime of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the growing importance of nuclear latency.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals
The Capability-Limitations Critique
The primary objection to the theory of intentional latency has emerged from Hymans (2006), who has pointed out that many nuclear programs are intended to be developed for other than strategic reasons, but for political or bureaucratic purposes. This may account for some of Egypt's energy motives behind its El-Dabaa project and prestige motives behind Saudi Arabia's policy, but not all of them. Egypt's support for a WMDFZ, together with its lack of ratification the Additional Protocol, indicates an intention to maintain nuclear optionality in Egypt. This is also the case with Saudi Arabia’s refusal to sign the Additional Protocol to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (ACA, 2023) and its non-ratification of the latter, which points to intentional option preservation rather than inadvertent capability accumulation. This comparison is further emphasized by comparisons with Japan (Solingen, 2007) and Brazil (Franceschini & Kütt, 2019). Both have great potential, but Japan has taken in a lot of transparency measures, so its threshold status is more of a side effect of civilian nuclear development. By contrast, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have actively kept themselves ambiguous, indicating that latency is more of a strategic condition than a technical one.
The Strategic Irrationality Critique
The second objection is based on classical deterrence theory. If deterrence is the goal, latency is a relatively weak weapon – an arsenal deter is better than an ambiguous capability. If you want to deter, the bomb should be made, Waltz (1981) contended. In this perspective, however, latency is not the ideal solution, but rather a compromise that offers limited security and no diplomatic benefits of total disarmament, and only wonks of the Cold War era would argue that it was better than weaponization.
In an idealized deterrence model, this criticism makes sense, but it does not take into consideration the expense that weaponization would entail in the current international context. It would, most probably, end U.S. security guarantee, and result in international sanctions, withdrawal of Western investment, and a loss of credibility for both states in their roles at multilateral institutions. These are not marginal costs. Foreign investment and tourism form an important basis for Egypt's economy. The Vision 2030 initiative in Saudi Arabia is based on the ongoing inflow of foreign direct investment and continued economic integration with the West. If both countries were to become openly belligerent towards each other, then they would face a serious threat in their external relations that is crucial to their security and modernization endeavors.
Also, in an area of mutual latency, the marginal deterrent gain of weaponization over its costs is small. Neither has Iran. Should Iran's stance change, the strategic equation changes—the latency is no longer the immoveable hedge it was. From a Waltzian point of view, what seems suboptimal is, under realistic constraints, a form of cost-sensitive optimization under uncertainty. But for a state which cannot afford to spend the bomb, there is no second best alternative to latency—it is a state which, rightly, has decided that the additional deterrence benefits of crossing the threshold are not worth the costs.
The Non-Proliferation Regime and the Problem of Visible Latency
The regime designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons was not intended to control nuclear latency. Although IAEA safeguards, the Additional Protocol and NSG controls can be used for combating clandestine weapons programmes, they are not mandated for legally declared threshold programmes. That's where Egypt and Saudi Arabia come in: El-Dabaa is fully documented, Saudi enrichment ambitions are openly announced and uranium exploration data is public. But this transparency also results in institutional blindness: the regime does not have the instruments to distinguish or act on deliberate capability building that falls short of the weapons level.
There are some very limited types of latency management that have been seen in practice. The JCPOA limited Iran's enrichment capacity and stockpiles and, tacitly, accepted speed rather than ability as the variable (Kerr, 2016). This logic is not in the formal realm of the NPT, however. A more general issue is “cascade latency”, which is the regional cooperation of enrichment-related knowledge through legal means. Dual-use capabilities are not necessarily spread one at a time but spread cumulatively as in the case of Saudi agreements, Turkish partnerships, and ties with Egyptian suppliers, without necessitating enforcement (CSIS, 2025; WNA, 2025).
Systematic IAEA monitoring of latency indicators (Müller, 2010), incorporating breakout-risk assessments into supplier controls and reviving a Middle East WMDFZ process to tackle underlying security incentives could be possible for reform measures. Politically challenging, such measures are indicative of a regime of a bygone era facing an area of normality in terms of threshold abilities.
The bomb that is never built is not anything
Egypt and Saudi Arabia show that nuclear latency is not simply an unfinished step toward building a weapon. It is a deliberate strategy, one that is rooted in real technical capabilities and shaped by clear political calculations. To understand why, you must take the technology itself seriously — not just as backdrop, but as the thing that makes latency work.
The El-Dabaa project makes this concrete. Egypt's four VVER-1200 reactors will not just produce electricity. Running them demands deep expertise across reactor physics, fuel handling, thermal hydraulics, and radiation safety, sustained across a workforce of tens of thousands of people. That knowledge, once built, does not go away. Rosatom's ten-year technical support arrangement and its commitment to supply fuel for the plant's entire lifetime means Egyptian engineers will spend a decade working at the cutting edge of civilian nuclear technology. What they accumulate in that time — the institutional knowledge, the trained personnel, the practical experience — is exactly what Wohlstetter (1979) identified as the most proliferation-relevant product of civilian nuclear programs. The reactor is not a strategic asset. The people who operate it are.
Saudi Arabia illustrates the same point even more directly.
The country sits on an estimated 90,000 tonnes of recoverable uranium, is moving toward domestic yellowcake production, and is developing a research reactor at KACST. Together, these form the foundation of an indigenous fuel cycle. And crucially, enrichment — the step that separates civilians from weapons-usable material — is not a side interest for Riyadh. It has been the sticking point in every round of 123 Agreement negotiations. The strategic logic is straightforward: a state that controls its own uranium, can enrich it, and operates power reactors has shrunk its potential breakout timeline from years to weeks. That is not a byproduct of Saudi nuclear ambitions. It is the point.
What makes both cases so difficult for the non-proliferation regime to handle is that there is no obvious moment of wrongdoing to catch. As Wohlstetter (1979) and Fitzpatrick (2014) both argue, the dual-use problem is not about bad behavior — it is built into the technology itself. The centrifuges used to produce low-enriched uranium for reactor fuel are the same ones that can produce highly enriched uranium for weapons. The cascade configurations are the same. Technical knowledge is the same. The only differences are the enrichment level and the time it takes. Current safeguards are not designed to monitor that spectrum. The IAEA can confirm that materials have not been diverted from declared facilities, but it has no tools to evaluate how quickly those same materials could be made weapons-usable if a government decided to act.
That is the problem the non-proliferation regime needs to face squarely. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not breaking the rules. They are working within a treaty framework — specifically Article IV, which guarantees access to peaceful nuclear technology — that was drafted before anyone fully understood how close the civilian fuel cycle sits to the weapons-capable one.
Addressing this will mean going beyond monitoring what states do with their materials, toward assessing what they would be capable of doing. That points to three concrete directions: IAEA frameworks that track breakout-relevant technical indicators, enrichment restrictions built into 123 Agreement conditions, and a serious revival of the Middle East WMDFZ process that gets at the security pressures fueling latency in the first place.
The bomb that is never built is not anything. It is a political tool constructed out of technical capability, and the regime meant to prevent proliferation was never designed to see it for what it is.
References and Literature
Arms Control Association. (2023, October). Just say “no” to uranium-enrichment cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Arms Control Today. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-
Arms Control Association. (2024). Saudi Arabia rescinds Small Quantities Protocol. Arms Control Today. https://www.armscontrol.org
Arms Control Association. (2026, March). U.S.-Saudi deal said to loosen nonproliferation vows. Arms Control Today. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2026-03/news/us-saudi-deal-said-
Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2025). The Saudi request for U.S. nuclear cooperation and its geopolitical quandaries. https://www.csis.org/analysis/saudi-request-us-nuclear-cooperation-and-its-geopolitical-quandaries
Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2025). Saudi nuclear negotiations and implications for 123 agreement frameworks. CSIS.
Cirincione, J., Wolfstahl, J. B., & Rajkumar, M. (2005). Deadly arsenals: Nuclear, biological, and chemical threats (2nd ed.). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Congressional Research Service. (2024, March). Prospects for U.S.-Saudi nuclear energy cooperation (Report No. IF10799). https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10799
Council on Foreign Relations. (2023). The global nuclear nonproliferation regime. https://www.cfr.org/reports/global-nuclear-nonproliferation-regime
ESI Africa. (2025, August). Egypt: El Dabaa nuclear plant — 10 key facts and the Chernobyl effect. ESI Africa. https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/generation/egypt-el-
Federation of American Scientists. (2012). Egypt nuclear weapons program. https://nuke.fas.org/guide/egypt/nuke/index.html
Fitzpatrick, M. (2014). Overcoming Pakistan’s nuclear dangers. Routledge for the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Franceschini, G., & Kütt, M. (2019). Brazil’s nuclear hedging: Historical trajectories and contemporary dynamics. The Nonproliferation Review, 26(3–4), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2019.1680091
House of Saud Analysis. (2026, March). Saudi Arabia nuclear program after Iran war: Enrichment. https://houseofsaud.com/saudi-arabia-nuclear-program-iran-war-enrichment/
Hymans, J. E. C. (2006). The psychology of nuclear proliferation: Identity, emotions, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.
Kerr, P. K. (2016). Iran nuclear agreement: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Congressional Research Service.
Levite, A. E. (2003). Never say never again: Nuclear reversal revisited. International Security, 27(3), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228802753696797
Levite, A. E. (2019). Nuclear hedging and latency: History, concepts, and issues. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2019/10/nuclear-hedging-and-latency-history-
Mehta, R. N., & Whitlark, R. E. (2017). The benefits and burdens of nuclear latency.
International Studies Quarterly, 61(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx028
Müller, H. (2010). The NPT review process and strengthening the treaty. International Affairs, 86(6), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2010.00938.x
Narang, V. (2022). Seeking the bomb: Strategies of nuclear proliferation. Princeton University Press.
Nasr, V. (2018, March 16). MBS’s nuclear bomb statement. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/mbs-nuclear/555879/
Nuclear Power Plants Authority. (2015). El Dabaa intergovernmental agreement. Government of Egypt.
Nuclear Threat Initiative. (2025). Egypt nuclear profile. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/egypt-nuclear/
Power Technology. (2023). El Dabaa nuclear power plant, Egypt. https://www.power-
Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation. (2023). Construction of El Dabaa NPP. https://www.rosatom.ru/en/investors/projects/
Sagan, S. D. (1996). Why do states build nuclear weapons? Three models in search of a bomb. International Security, 21(3), 54–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539273
Saudi Mining Consulting. (2026, February). Saudi uranium exploration: Hidden atomic wealth. https://saudiminingconsulting.com/insights/articles/saudi-uranium-exploration-hidden-
Solingen, E. (2007). Nuclear logics: Contrasting paths in East Asia and the Middle East.
Princeton University Press.
The Loop/ECPR. (2025, May). Saudi Arabia’s nuclear prospects in an era of strategic competition. The Loop. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/saudi-arabias-nuclear-prospects-in-an-era-of-strategic-competition/
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, opened for signature July 1, 1968, 729
U.N.T.S. 161 (entered into force March 5, 1970). https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/
Ud-Din Khan, S., Ahmad, A., Khan, R., & Haneklaus, N. (2024). Uranium resources associated with phosphoric acid production and water desalination in Saudi Arabia. Frontiers in Earth Science, 12, Article 1341059. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2024.1341059
Volpe, T. A. (2017). Atomic leverage: Compellence with nuclear latency. Security Studies, 26(3), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2017.1306398
Walsh, J. I. (2010). Egypt’s nuclear weapons program: Lessons learned. The Nonproliferation Review, 13(3), 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700601071637
Waltz, K. N. (1981). The spread of nuclear weapons: More may be better (Adelphi Paper No.171). International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Wohlstetter, A. (1979). Swords from plowshares: The military potential of civilian nuclear energy. University of Chicago Press.
World Nuclear Association. (2025, November). Nuclear power in Egypt. https://world-
World Nuclear Association. (2025, November). Nuclear power in Saudi Arabia. https://world-
Comments