• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Sharon Squassoni"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

The New Disarmament Discussion

The vision of a world without nuclear weapons has taken shape outside of governments, but is increasingly creeping inside governments.

Link Copied
By Sharon Squassoni
Published on Jan 8, 2009

Source: Current History

Nuclear disarmament appears to be on track for a political makeover. Serious commentators have begun to discuss what it might take to actually get to zero nuclear weapons, a question that is no longer the exclusive purview of grassroots activists. No one believes the goal will be achieved any time soon. But a consensus has emerged that the project of disarmament must be taken seriously if the world is to avoid further proliferation of nuclear weapons, perhaps into the hands of terrorists.

Until about two years ago, few but the most ardent antinuclear groups advocated outright elimination of nuclear weapons. Arms control advocates lobbied for fewer strategic nuclear weapons, less threatening alert postures, a continued ban on nuclear testing, and limited or no modernization of existing stockpiles, among other things. When cornered, US government officials would note that Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) calls for negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. In short, there was a safety valve on just how far the project of nuclear disarmament could proceed and certainly no timetable for reaching any particular goals.

Reprinted with permission from Current History (Issue 714, January 2009), © Current History, Inc.

About the Author

Sharon Squassoni

Former Senior Associate, Nuclear Policy Program

Squassoni came to Carnegie from the Congressional Research Service. She also served for nine years in the executive branch. Her last position at the State Department was director of Policy Coordination in the Nonproliferation Bureau.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    Grading Progress on 13 Steps Toward Nuclear Disarmament

      Sharon Squassoni

  • Report
    Nuclear Energy: Rebirth or Resuscitation?

      Sharon Squassoni

Sharon Squassoni
Former Senior Associate, Nuclear Policy Program
Sharon Squassoni
Nuclear PolicyNorth AmericaUnited States

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran

    Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks

    Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.  

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week Ceasefire

    Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy

    In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.

    The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.

      Nathan J. Brown

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.