Search

Nuclear acquisition is a historically rare event driven by a broad range of factors, of which US nonproliferation policy is only one.[61] Nonetheless, the political benefits that nuclear weapons continue to offer the states that possess them, along with the broader geopolitical dynamics that may increase some states' incentives to acquire nuclear weapons, are likely to ensure that proliferation remains plausible.[62] Our argument suggests that the United States will likely become less central to the choices that states make about whether to seek and acquire nuclear weapons. Second, domestic political consensus within the United States has provided long-term credibility to the deals and commitments the United States makes, allowed policymakers to use the full set of nonproliferation tools in tandem, and ensured that nonproliferation policies endure across administrations of varying political stripes. First, US material power - military, economic, and within the civilian nuclear energy sector - has allowed the United States to shift the incentives of states contemplating a decision to pursue or acquire nuclear weapons, enabled the United States to build an international order that supports nonproliferation goals, and reinforced the US motivation to prevent proliferation. Third, US normative legitimacy has helped the United States achieve nonproliferation successes at lower costs, created an international order that states sought to enter even at the cost of eschewing their ability to acquire nuclear weapons, and allowed the United States to paper over some of the tensions within its portfolio of nonproliferation policies. [Extracted from the article]

And domestic politics need to be managed to break out of the polarization which left the US with lower COVID vaccination rates and higher death rates than most other large high-income countries.[55] The second is support for vaccine and other capacity building in low- and middle-income countries, such as the mRNA Vaccine Technology Transfer Hub which includes 15 countries in the Global South. But even if Iran violates non-weaponization understandings with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the US were to resort to military force, claims of rule-enforcing against Iranian rule-breaking would be unlikely to carry the day given the US' highly mixed rule-abiding, rule-abusing record. It's hard to find a major Biden administration speech or policy document that doesn't invoke the "rules-based order." The United States for politics trumping science to such an extent that, as Francis Fukuyama put it, "its current highly polarized society and incompetent leader blocked the state from functioning effectively."[31] A bevy of countries for vaccine nationalism. [Extracted from the article]

South Korea has long been on the list of potential over-the-horizon proliferation challenges, but growing debates in Seoul about its nuclear options are quickly moving it toward the front of the US nonproliferation agenda. In particular, South Korea's emergence as a capable manufacturer and exporter of nuclear technology suggests the need for a substantively deeper relationship, to include closer cooperation in foreign markets.[55] South Korea may be the most prominent example, but it is not the only case of a US ally or partner that could contemplate nuclear weapons acquisition. Interestingly, when asked whether South Korea should develop nuclear weapons despite the possibility of economic sanctions, only 36 percent agreed, providing some evidence that majority public support for nuclear weapons acquisition is quite sensitive to potential consequences.[14] There appears to be wishful thinking about why the US might accept ROK proliferation. Some argue that South Korea's prominent international status would also deter such sanctions, or at least better enable Seoul to ride them out, presumably because countries would conclude that the risks of permanently ostracizing South Korea outweigh the benefits.[28] This "legal and transparent" strategy is notable because it stands in marked contrast with how most other proliferators have pursued nuclear weapons in the modern era; namely by trying to conceal both their intent and their capabilities from the outside world. [Extracted from the article]

It has been a year since Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the West's subsequent response with coordinated financial and economic sanctions. Moreover, while the United States may find general support for its sanctions regime against North Korea - a country with few economic ties and little, if any, global economic influence - China (and Russia) are another story. Victor Cha, professor of government at Georgetown and a Senior Vice President at the Center for Science and International Studies, recently called for "collective resilience" to counter China's use of "discriminatory sanctions."[33] That is, coalitions of regional allies and partners that, collectively, can withstand China's economic bullying. [Extracted from the article]

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shocked Western observers. By 1991, Russia found itself belatedly confronting the same dilemma that Eurasia's other three post-imperial states had been grappling with for decades: how to build a territorially bounded state and nation amid the wreckage of empire. Russia is a more overtly imperial power, whose leaders do not regard the country's post-Soviet contraction as either legitimate or permanent. This claim on the loyalties of other states' citizens, at odds with Yeltsin's attempts to consolidate a civic nation within Russia's borders, is the most unambiguous evidence of the continued influence of imperial thinking within the Russian elite - and a public that, so far at least, largely supports Putin's "special military operation" against Ukraine.[41] Implications of Russia's Imperial Revival Of course, a similar "near abroad" syndrome is visible in the ways Iran, Turkey and China - not to mention states like France and Britain - have at various times understood their relationships with onetime dependencies (think for instance of France's role as a security provider in the Sahel). [Extracted from the article]

Unlike the United States, China is still reliant on the Middle East for energy, importing nearly half of its oil from the region.[12] The Middle East also provides critical sea and land links for China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). After decades of wars in the Middle East, growing great power competition, and changing priorities at home, there is much uncertainty about America's place in the world today. Continued crises, often related to Iran, and longstanding commitments to regional partners - combined with bureaucratic inertia and the interests of major defense contractors - could keep the United States tethered to the region for the foreseeable future, even if a growing number of policymakers in Washington would no longer like to be there.[1] Is the United States really leaving the Middle East? Regional states have also increased their own diplomatic and military activism to fill the perceived absence of an assertive US role.[3] A post-American Middle East, however, is not a Middle East without America. [Extracted from the article]

[7] For the nations on Russia's periphery, divisions between Russia and the West bleed into domestic politics and undermine reform and democratic consolidation. The lessons to be drawn from the Balkans are extensive, and include strategies to overcome hesitancy of individual governments, promote the economic logic of trade and interdependence, and lessen destabilizing extra-regional intrusions from Russia or elsewhere.[23] The lessons to be drawn from the Balkans are extensive Resilient regional institutions around Russia can be developed, through which American interests can be advanced without explicitly threatening Russia - perhaps even in cooperation with it and at significantly lower political and financial costs than the approaches tried thus far. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, US policy toward Russia has combined elements of principled pragmatism, selective engagement, and containment. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on empirical prevalence and substantive importance of nuclear latency, international politics and political science have instead largely focused on understanding the consequences of the spread of nuclear weapons. Topics discussed include nonproliferation partners might actually systematically encourage the acquisition of latency as a means to preventing a state from acquiring weapons, development and implications of nuclear latency and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It mentions Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran and the U.S. and nuclear deterrence.

The article focuses on the policy of the U.S. President Donald Trump towards the exit from Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which is Iran nuclear deal. Topics discussed include Iran's nuclear energy activities were broader than the singular issue of nonproliferation and the Iran nuclear program, restoring U.S.-Iran bilateral relations as well as reintegration of Iran into the international community and promoting human rights and democracy inside Iran and importance of pursuing nuclear nonproliferation, insisted that the primary objective in negotiating a deal. It also mentions decision not to attack Syria in August 2013 in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons was driven primarily by his overwhelming desire to come to a nuclear agreement with Iran.

In this article, the author discusses the rise of nuclear taboo and its effects and the book "The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945." It mentions rise of a nuclear taboo in international politics and its influence on the decision making of American leaders as they contemplated using nuclear weapons during international crises after 1945. It also mentions U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 and from the Iran agreement Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and collapse of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. It also offers information on Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) which stabilize the practice of nonuse.

The article focuses on preventive war threats work for nuclear nonproliferation and can limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Topics discussed include U.S. President Donald Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from a nonproliferation deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), analysis to the contemporary cases of Iran and North Korea and fundamentals of deterrence theory it reviews the conditions that are necessary for military threats to work generally. It mentions threat to the national security with attempting to develop nuclear weapons which could prompt a preventive attack.

The article addresses the common issues that lead to complications in sanctions relief, as well as their potential solutions. It identifies three problems about sanctions relief: unclear, confused or misaligned objectives; entrenched politics; and the complexity of pushing business interests. It cites the sanctions imposed on Iran after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in 2015. The challenge of overcoming policy confusion and political disagreements related to sanctions is also discussed.

The article assesses the impact of the Saudi nuclear program on regional security dynamics under three nuclear cooperation frameworks with the U.S. The frameworks include an agreement that provides the U.S. veto power over many forms of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing in Saudi Arabia. The strength of nonproliferation commitments in their nuclear agreements is discussed, as well as the effect of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an Iranian nuclear deal entered by the U.S. The need to build human capacity and industrial infrastructure in the nuclear energy industry is explained.

The article U.S. strategies of pushback that aims to weaken Iran's regional influence and hopefully eliminate it from key states in Iran by identifying U.S. strategy's pros and cons that could address Iran's regional issues. Topics include Iranian engagement in terrorism and political violence, nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East, and role of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Also discussed is 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, role of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and counter-terrorism policies. Also discussed is sanctions against Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The article explores the U.S.-Iran Nuclear engagement dealing with the U.S.-Iran relations owing to the Iranian nuclear dispute. Topics include tensions between U.S.-Iran, collaborations between U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Also discussed are topics such as role of UN Security Council (UNSC) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The author also discusses U.S. sanctions such as the 2010 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA).

Th article discusses the foreign policy review that will be undertaken on January 21, 2017 by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and the national security team he appoints, focusing on Iran and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal signed with the country. Topics discussed include U.S. foreign policy towards countries like Russia and China in addition to Iran. Other topics discussed include Trump's stance that the nuclear deal with Iran needs to be cancelled and the U.S. needs to return to it's previous policy of isolation and confrontation against Iran.

The article discusses the stance on Middle East policies by President-elect Donald Trump during his election campaign. Topics discussed include Trump being critical of U.S. President Barack Obama's management of the region including the nuclear deal with Iran, allies like Saudi Arabia, and intervention on behalf of Syrian rebels. In addition, Trump also called for banning Muslim immigration to the U.S. and has stated radical Islam is the greatest threat to the U.S. The author opines that Trump could find the implementation of his policies challenging.

The article talks about the nuclear deal by Iran, which signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the international community that includes the European Union, that ensures the country's nuclear program will be peaceful for the next 10 to 15 years. Topics discussed include the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirming all obligations had been fulfilled by the signatories to the agreement. Other topics discussed include the agreement allowing Iran to retain a large portion of its nuclear infrastructure.

The essay focuses on Iran's nuclear program and mentions nuclear nonproliferation. Topics discussed include nuclear deal Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and other countries including United States, presidential elections in United States in 2016 and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Other topics which includes International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), missile tests by Iran and nuclear weapons of Iran are also discussed. Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is also mentioned.

The article focuses on the crisis faced by Syria following the Syrian War dealing with the displacement of several civilians, Syrian foreign policies, and the role of U.S. in the Syrian war against the Islamic State (IS). Topics include crisis faced by U.S. government as they combated the IS, political regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and role of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The article focuses on U.S. diplomatic policies to combat IS to prevent acts of terrorism by the IS. The article talks about U.S. humanitarian efforts to resolve conflict in Syria, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, and the stability of Oil prices.

The article talks about Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran's nuclear deal focusing on U.S. opposition to engage with Iran following September 11, 2001 and the efforts made by the U.S. government. The article talks about European Union's association with U.S. in the nuclear deal. The role of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and European External Action Service (EEAS) is mentioned. Topics include Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 2003 invasion of Iraq, and issues with the U.S. Affordable Care Act. Topics include U.S. foreign policy, European Union's (EU) economic and political engagement with Iran.

The Iran deal inspires new questions such as why has the agreement come about now? And can the parties create momentum to cooperate on other issues? In Europe's case, the overlooked actor may have been motivated by an overlooked element: potential energy cooperation to help escape Russia's gas monopoly. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Iran's policy toward nuclear talks changed not because of Rouhani's election in 2013, but because of Supreme Leader Khamenei in 2011. Yet the future of that agreement, whose significance in Iran is comparable to the 1987 ceasefire with Iraq, depends on continuing political will, which among other issues, could be disrupted by at least three factors inside Iran. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]