If states truly want to help eliminate nuclear weapons, there are a few meaningful steps they can take to address urgent threats to the cause of global disarmament.
It is imperative that the United States not abandon international development out of the mistaken sense that it is removed from America’s core economic, political, and security interests.
Chinese and Russian leaders won’t always agree, but their deepening cooperation and mistrust of the U.S. is here to stay. Unfortunately, American leaders have shown few signs that they know how to navigate this new reality, let alone manage the competition among great powers as non-Western countries grown in stature.
The United States far outranks all developed countries in terms of gun ownership and violence, which has become a national pathology, spurred on by lobbies and craven politicians.
Planning for the future of Iraq after ISIS will be essential to consolidating coalition successes and avoiding yet another recurrence of insurgency and state failure.
U.S. and Afgani leaders have agreed to ask Qatar to close the Taliban's political commission office. This would be a mistake that would prevent further negotiations to end the war in Afghanistan. The office has previously proved its usefulness in a prisoner exchange.
President Kovind’s visit to Djibouti and Ethiopia suggests India is finally waking up to the geopolitical significance of the Horn of Africa.
India needs to craft a more streamlined regulatory system and take other concrete steps to support growth in its domestic biotech sector.
Recent moves by the Tunisian government may signal a major backsliding in the country’s democratic development.
What trends can we decipher when it comes to modern protests? Is there a pattern to the grievances that helps to explain the current spike in citizen mobilisation?
As Donald Trump continues to undermine Rex Tillerson and the Department of State, it’s clear that both the office of the secretary of state and the department itself have a diminished role in the current administration.
Fundamentally, it seems irrational to leave an agreement that’s working today out of a fixation on potential growth of Iran’s nuclear program more than a decade from now, when such growth could happen tomorrow if we unravel the agreement.
President Trump has the option to not certify Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal, breaking with European allies and signatories of the deal. If the United States chooses to re-impose sanctions, they will do so without international support, leaving empty sanctions against Iran.
Trump has correctly put the North Korea crisis at the top of the international agenda, but on almost every other aspect of Crisis Management 101, he is failing the course—and the consequences could be deadly.
Even though arms control cannot prevent deliberate escalation, at least confidence-and-security-building measures could diminish the risk of unintended escalation. But the political realities in Moscow and Washington are not promising for conventional arms control in Europe.
As the U.S. and Iran find themselves on opposing sides of conflicts across the region, the Trump administration will decide in the coming weeks if they will recertify the Iran nuclear deal.
To reduce danger, we need less bombast and better communication.
Concern over ballistic missiles should not be the impetus for withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. Ballistic missiles were intentionally left out of the deal because of the lack of international consensus.
India will inevitably have to do more in Afghanistan, since the United States will not bear the security burden forever. Any substantive India-U.S. strategic coordination, however, could presage a major change in the regional politics of South Asia.
The rise of electric vehicles appears unstoppable, but they need much more to cause a serious disruption in the transport sector.