America’s record of nuclear accords with the former Soviet Union remains a remarkable example of the ways that the world can address formerly intractable issues, step by step.
Before the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 2017, the G20 countries’ reactions to the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty were based on their own interests and loyalties.
In the 55 years since unseen nuclear bullets were dodged in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States’ technical capabilities to gather intelligence have improved breathtakingly. Still, it is extremely difficult to know how foreign adversaries perceive their situation and calculate their moves.
Unlike during the Cold War, critical decision-making in the Nuclear Suppliers Group today is beset by its members' geo-strategic politics today for very specific reasons.
The risk of an inadvertent nuclear war is rising because of the entanglement of non-nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons and their command-and-control capabilities.
The Iran Deal may not be perfect but the decision by the Trump Administration weakens oversight mechanisms and causes rifts between America and its European allies.
A U.S. strategy to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the challenges it poses regionally.
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.
Despite some arguments to the contrary, limits on Iran’s enrichment capabilities are consistent with the 2002 U.S. law regulating medical isotope production.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to undo the Iran Nuclear Deal hands leverage over to Iran, and reduces international confidence in the United States.