Commentary
In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers.
Michael Young
{
"authors": [
"Tomoko Kurokawa",
"Jon Wolfsthal"
],
"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",
"Arms Control"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Determinants of the Nuclear Policy Options in the Obama Administration: An Interview With Jon Wolfsthal
Through an interview with a former Obama administration official, the major determinants of the president’s nuclear policy options are explored in detail.
Published on Dec 4, 2018
Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament
Abstract
Jon Wolfsthal is renowned for his policy achievements and his well-informed articles on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation issues. He served as special assistant to former US President Barack Obama and as senior director for arms control and nonproliferation at the National Security Council from 2014 to 2017. He was special adviser to Vice President Joe Biden for nuclear security and nonproliferation and a director for nonproliferation on the National Security Council from 2009 to 2012. During his time in the Obama White House, Wolfsthal was a key figure in formulating and implementing Obama administration nuclear policies. This interview enables both experts and the general public to become more acquainted with major determinants of the policy options that the Obama administration pursued as it sought to advance the President’s “Prague agenda”. The following text actually combines two interviews, conducted on 30 July 2017 and 1 March 2018 and edited for this journal.
Hiroshima Visit
Tomoko Kurokawa (TK):
You have been a distinguished expert on nuclear weapons policy for a long time, but finally, in summer 2017, you visited Hiroshima to attend a symposium held in this city.
Jon Wolfsthal (JW):
It was my first visit to Hiroshima. It was challenging to be there. I’ve spent my whole life working on nuclear issues. Before coming to Hiroshima, I had visited many locations associated with nuclear weapons development and use. I have been to U.S. Strategic Command and Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore laboratories. Then, I had been through 35 years of working on nuclear issues, but had never been to Hiroshima. To finally come to Hiroshima is – it makes you, it forces you to think. It forces you to be aware of what you’re working on. So, it’s challenging. I woke up early on the morning after arrival at Hiroshima and walked over to the Peace Park. On that day, some ceremony was scheduled in the Peace Park. I didn’t want to attend this ceremony as my first time visit to the Peace Park – so I could get my crying done beforehand. Then I can be a little bit more composed at the ceremony.
TK:
What was your impression of the Peace Park?
JW:
It’s beautiful. In the United States, people are still very sensitive in discussing the bombing of Hiroshima. And every time there is a museum exhibit or an event on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is a big controversy. So, in reading all of the language and transcription it’s clear that there is also a great sensitivity here in the way that things are talked about.
TK:
American people are still very sensitive?
JW:
Just the language. It’s clear that it’s very delicate. And so, I find it interesting that we have the same concern, both in the United States and in Japan, it’s reflected in all of our language. But it’s emotional. And it’s hard to know really how to feel as an American, as a friend of Japan, as someone who wants to eliminate nuclear weapons but who also understands history. It’s – the word I keep coming back to is it really is challenging; it’s forcing me to rethink all of the assumptions, all of the conclusions, which is why we come here. Right? It’s easy to think about these issues in Harvard University or at Stanford; it’s another thing to come to where a nuclear weapon has been used and to think about it.
Read the article
This article was originally published in the Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament.
About the Authors
Tomoko Kurokawa
Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program
Kurokawa was a nonresident scholar in the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program.
Jon Wolfsthal
Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program
Jon Wolfsthal was a nonresident scholar with the Nuclear Policy Program.
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 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran
- What We Lost When Washington Walked Away From Climate-Health EffortsCommentary
Our new report offers a path forward for local officials and future policymakers.
- +2
Joe McCannon, Jenny Keroack, Lauren Jensen, …
- Advancing Climate Health for Vulnerable Groups in the United States: Looking Back and Looking AheadPaper
Present and future policymakers seeking to address climate-related health challenges can draw lessons from the successes and failures of the Biden administration.
- +1
Joe McCannon, Jenny Keroack, Lauren Jensen, …
- Lebanon Needs a New Negotiating Strategy with IsraelCommentary
Unless Beirut lowers expectations, any setbacks will end up bolstering Hezbollah’s narrative.
Mohanad Hage Ali
- The U.S. Export-Import Bank Was Built for a Different Era. Here's How to Fix It.Commentary
Five problems—and solutions—to make it actually work as a tool of great power competition.
Afreen Akhter
