Translation of “Lebanon Debate”
Saudi Arabia is proceeding with its nuclear partnership with the United States without waiting for Israel, while clinging to the establishment of a Palestinian state as a condition for any normalization, which exposes Tel Aviv to the possibility of losing the agreement with Riyadh and facing an advanced Saudi nuclear program at the same time.
According to an article by retired Israeli Major General Yisrael Ziv in the Maariv newspaper, US President Donald Trump this week sent the civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia to Congress, reiterating that its entry into force is conditional on the Kingdom normalizing its relations with Israel.
But the Saudi response came quickly and decisively: No normalization without an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Riyadh believes that the nuclear program is part of the partnership between it and Washington, and it should not be linked to Israel. It also considers that normalization is not on the table with the current government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The Saudis reported that they preferred to wait to find out the identity of the next government in Israel.
Zev concludes from this position that Saudi Arabia does not surrender to dictates, pointing out that the American condition was not included in the signed agreement itself, but was added a day after it was signed following an Israeli protest. According to his assessment, Riyadh dealt with him as an improvised pressure tool rather than a fixed policy.
The writer considers that Saudi Arabia’s willingness to publicly reject Trump’s request reflects its reading of his current position, as he believes that his involvement in Iran, and the resulting heavy prices that Saudi Arabia and other countries have paid and are still paying, has weakened his position in the region.
The second conclusion, according to Ziv, is that the war did not soften the Saudi position, but rather made it more stringent. Whereas Riyadh was previously content with a declaration, a political horizon, or an “irreversible path” towards a Palestinian state, it is now demanding the entire package.
The Israeli writer believes that Saudi Arabia seeks, in other words, to inflict a political defeat on the Netanyahu government due to the endless war, and that this approach means a direct strengthening of the Palestinian Authority and an indirect victory for the Hamas movement.
He points out that Yahya Al-Sinwar launched the October 7 attack, among other goals, to thwart Saudi normalization with Israel, considering that this goal was fully achieved after 3 years.
But the most dangerous irony, according to the article, is that the agreement is before Congress, and will enter into force 90 days after it is held, unless the House of Representatives and the Senate issue resolutions objecting to it.
The agreement does not prohibit uranium enrichment or the treatment of nuclear waste, contrary to what is known as the “gold standard” to which the UAE committed in 2009. Therefore, Israel may find itself facing the worst of two scenarios together: a Saudi nuclear program progressing while keeping the door to enrichment open, without normalization, and without the pressure tool that was supposed to bind Riyadh to it, and in light of the fact that Congress no longer takes Israel into account.
Ziv believes that this is the outcome of 3 years of war: not a strategic shift that strengthens Israel’s position, but rather the exact opposite, from deep political isolation and a weak ally in the White House, to “Hamas” and “Hezbollah” restoring their capabilities, and uniting an Arab front around a tougher condition than the one it was putting forward before the war.
He concludes that the remarkable Israeli tactical achievements have accumulated into a complete strategic failure, and that the essence of the issue is not related to Saudi Arabia as much as it is related to Israel itself.
According to the writer, Riyadh clearly and without ambiguity determined the price of continuing the war in the absence of a political horizon, a price that Israel has already begun to pay, while its cost is constantly increasing. As for the belief that it is possible to continue winning on the battlefield without paying anything in return in the political field, it received its answer this time not from an enemy, but from a potential ally who decided to abandon Israel.
