15 Items

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers his speech near the Azadi (freedom) tower at a rally to mark the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that toppled the country's pro-Western monarchy, Tehran, Feb. 11, 2012.

AP Photo

Analysis & Opinions - Politics, Power, and Preventive Action

Ask the Experts: What Would Iran Do With a Bomb?

| February 21, 2012

"Iran's leaders, like those in other states, want to remain in power.  They want the regime in which they have invested and which serves their interests to endure.  Foreign policy, in addition to safeguarding Iran's borders and national integrity, is a means for safeguarding the regime.  Possession of a nuclear weapon will likely make Iran more impervious to attack and may make Iran bolder in its support for armed groups.  However, possessing a nuclear weapon will is not likely to alter Iran's paramount foreign policy goals of national and regime security."

President Obama meets with former Defense Secretary William Perry; former Sen. Sam Nunn; former Secretary of State George P. Shultz; and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the Oval Office.

White House Photo

Analysis & Opinions - Wall Street Journal

Nuclear Zero? Why Not Nuclear Infinity?

| July 30, 2011

"The primary purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter our enemies and assure our friends. No adversary would be restrained by the fear of attack from a nonexistent nuclear arsenal. But the prospect of fighting an adversary with unlimited nuclear firepower would induce much more caution even in our most reckless enemies."

A family buys patriotic ribbons in the colors of the Egyptian flag from a street vendor near Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Feb. 15, 2011. Egypt's long banned Muslim Brotherhood said it intends to form a political party once democracy is established.

AP Photo

Analysis & Opinions - CNN

Egypt's Future Needs a Strong Legislature

| February 23, 2011

"If Egyptians are to have a chance at a democratic future, their new constitution must confer considerable authority on the People's Assembly, including the right to remove the chief executive from office, question and investigate executive branch officials, oversee the armed forces and the police, and approve or reject Cabinet appointments. Furthermore, the executive must be deprived of the power to issue decrees or appoint members of the legislature."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton addressing an international conference promoting democracy in Krakow, Poland, July 3, 2010.

AP Photo

Journal Article - Comparative Strategy

Taking Soft Power Seriously

| November 2010

The term soft power is entrenched in the theory and practice of American foreign policy, yet scholars have not yet developed, or empirically tested, a theory about the conditions under which governments can use soft power to their advantage—and that makes good policy hard to design. Drawing on research from the fields of communications, social psychology, and international relations theory, we develop a theory about the conditions under which state efforts to employ soft power will be most likely to succeed.

Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security

Correspondence: Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

| Summer 2010

Christoph Bluth, Matthew Kroenig, Rensselaer Lee, and William Sailor respond to Matthew Fuhrmann's summer 2009 International Security article, "Spreading Temptation: Proliferation and Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreements."

teaser image

Book - Cornell University Press

Exporting the Bomb: Technology Transfer and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

| April 2010

Matthew Kroenig's book, Exporting the Bomb: Technology Transfer and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons, was published by Cornell University Press. Kroenig argues that nearly every country with a nuclear weapons arsenal received substantial help at some point from a more advanced nuclear state. Understanding why states provide sensitive nuclear assistance not only adds to our knowledge of international politics but also aids in international efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons.

The USS John C. Stennis with its air wing on board passes the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel in Va., Feb. 26, 1998, after leaving Norfolk Naval Base. The USS Stennis is bound for the Persian Gulf.

AP Photo

Analysis & Opinions - The New Republic

Bombs Away

| February 9, 2010

"Some analysts argue that we shouldn't worry about proliferation in Iran because nuclear deterrence will work, much like it worked during the Cold War. But from Washington's point of view, this is precisely the problem; it is more often than not the United States that will be deterred. Although Washington might not have immediate plans to use force in the Middle East, it would like to keep the option open."

Paper

Beyond Optimism and Pessimism: The Differential Effects of Nuclear Proliferation

| November 2009

Matthew Kroenig examines the effect of the spread of nuclear weapons on international politics in a Managing the Atom Working Paper.  He observes that the spread of nuclear weapons threatens some states more than others, and proposes a theory of nuclear proliferation that examines the differential effects of proliferation.  He argues that the threat nuclear proliferation poses to a particular state depends on that state’s ability to project military power.  The spread of nuclear weapons is worse for states that have the ability to project conventional military power over a potential nuclear weapon state because nuclear proliferation constrains their conventional military freedom of action.

South Korean researchers check air samples for radioactive material at the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety in Daejeon, South Korea, May 27, 2009, following North Korea's second nuclear test.

AP Photo

Analysis & Opinions - USA Today

Look at the Bright Side

| May 28, 2009

"Others worry that North Korea, with its economy in shambles, will sell nuclear materials to earn hard currency. However, my research demonstrates that countries transfer nuclear technology for strategic, not economic, reasons. It is extremely unlikely, for example, that North Korea would sell nuclear technology to terrorists because of potentially devastating consequences. If the terrorists used those weapons on the U.S., it could spur massive retaliation against North Korea. The upside for the U.S.? It's much easier to deal with a country motivated by realpolitik than one blindly willing to trade away its security for a few bucks."