Edition

Proliferation News 3/25/25

IN THIS ISSUE: France, UK must heed the call of Europe's new nuclear age, Governing the impact of emerging technologies: Actors, technologies, and regulation, US Threatens 'All Options on the Table' for Iran, Exclusive: Iran to decide on UAE-hosted negotiations with the US, What’s next for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant after it was highlighted in Ukraine-US talks, UK will not shy away from nuclear weapons, John Healey tells Russia

Published on March 25, 2025

Ankit Panda | Defense One

French President Emmanuel Macron’s bold call to open a new “strategic debate” in Europe on the role of nuclear deterrence without the United States deserves commendation. Europe must be clear-eyed about the geopolitical tectonic shifts underway and their consequences. Chief among these is the idea that, given political tides in Washington, relying on the United States for the long haul is intolerable.

Ulrich Kühn and Heather Williams | Journal of Strategic Studies

The rapidly growing impact of emerging technologies has spurred calls to reign in their proliferation and use. How and to what end are different international actors governing and capitalising on the impact of emerging technologies, and what regulatory strategies are successful? This special issue focuses on governance strategies to deal with emerging technologies, ranging from multilateral and bilateral regulation to unilateral deterrence policies. Employing historical and comparative case studies and leveraging novel data sets, the authors find that the success of technology governance depends on a complex mix of actors involved, the timing of regulation, and the nature of technology.

Amir Daftari | Newsweek

President Donald Trump's efforts to engage with Iran on a possible nuclear agreement reflect an attempt to avoid conflict, according to U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Speaking to Fox News Sunday, Witkoff said that Washington prefers a diplomatic resolution over military confrontation… Tensions between Washington and Tehran have remained high since Trump reinstated harsh sanctions aimed at crippling Iran's economy. The U.S. views Iran's nuclear program as a direct threat, while Tehran insists its efforts are for peaceful purposes. The standoff has led to military escalations in the past.

Amwaj.media

The initiation of negotiations between Iran and the United States could be imminent, Amwaj.media has learned. This follows US President Donald Trump's recent letter to Iran, which was delivered by Emirati diplomatic advisor Anwar Gargash on Mar. 12. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a high-ranking political source in Tehran asserted that Iran has yet to respond to an apparent request for the Emiratis to facilitate engagement, saying, “We have not decided yet. It all depends on when the response to Trump’s letter is ready.”

Hanna Arhirova | AP News

During a call between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, the U.S. leader apparently suggested Volodymyr Zelenskyy consider transferring ownership of Ukraine’s power plants to the U.S. for long-term security, according to a U.S. statement… Zelenskyy said that when they discussed Zaporizhzhia, the U.S. leader had inquired about the facility’s future. “Trump asked my thoughts on the plant,” Zelenskyy said. “I told him that if it is not Ukrainian, it will not operate. It is illegal.” Even though ZNPP is a state-owned plant, Zelenskyy acknowledged that if the U.S. were to claim it from Russian control, invest in it and modernize it, Ukraine might consider it.

Larisa Brown and Bruno Waterfield | Times of London

Britain has the power to do “untold damage” to adversaries such as Russia with its nuclear deterrent, the defence secretary has warned, as he marked the build of the next generation of nuclear submarines. John Healey said he took Vladimir Putin’s threats to use his nuclear arsenal seriously and the UK should not “fight shy” of the fact it has such weapons… [H]e also said that France could follow the UK’s example and commit its nuclear weapons to defend Nato and protect the security of Europe.

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.