The risk of a nuclear war is rising because of growing non-nuclear threats to nuclear weapons and their command-and-control systems.
The Iran nuclear deal is merely the cornerstone of a broader, longer-term strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to diminish and counter Iran’s threatening behavior—from its growing ballistic missile arsenal, to its dangerous use of regional proxies, to its human rights abuses at home.
The Nobel Committee awarded its annual peace prize to the laudable goal of nuclear disarmament. But civil society actors and governments concerned about disarmament should not be tempted to rest on the laurels of this achievement.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s doctrine aims to oppose former U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, and the Iran deal is one of Obama’s signature foreign policy legacies.
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.
A fierce debate is raging in China over the best policy for dealing with North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.
The United States needs to reconsider its objective of denuclearizing North Korea and its demand for denuclearization before dialogue in order to solve the North Korea dilemma that it faces.
The risks of a military conflict with North Korea is growing day by day. Not talking has not slowed North Korea’s advance, and sanctions alone will not achieve the desired result.
It is necessary to be clear that the United States will retaliate if North Korea provokes an attack on the United States or its allies, but containment and deterrence remain preferable to an unacceptably costly military intervention.
There’s no reason the United States cannot pursue a diplomatic track while at the same time deterring, defending, and containing the North Korean nuclear threat to America and its allies.