Nuclear Issues

274 Items

a speedboat of Iran's Revolutionary Guard moving around the British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero

Tasnim News Agency via AP/Morteza Akhoondi

Analysis & Opinions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Never Waste a Good Crisis

| July 29, 2019

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has asked top experts from a variety of countries and with a variety of points of view to offer their best and most realistic advice on how the U.S.-Iran impasse might be broken, so a war that neither the United States nor Iran seems eager to begin can be averted. Chuck Freilich writes that the objective is a better deal, and a combination of coercive diplomacy, applied patiently over time, along with a willingness to compromise may make this possible. A "better deal" can only be achieved, however, if it is better for both sides. 

Iranian demonstrators in Tehran, Iran

Tasnim

Analysis & Opinions - Aljazeera

Why Trump's strategy against Iran is likely to fail

| June 05, 2019

While Iranians are suffering from the economic crisis, the US "maximum pressure" strategy is compelling them to rally around the flag, rather than try to "take down the regime". This is not only because the cultural value of resistance is relatively high, but also because the more the Iranian leadership resists foreign pressure, the more legitimacy it gains.

A fighter jet flies over Iranian flags

Iranian Presidency Office via AP

Analysis & Opinions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The Trump Administration's Maximum Pressure Campaign: A Prelude to War with Iran?

| May 06, 2019

Dina Esfandiary analyzes the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign against Iran and concludes that it seems to be designed to force Iran into leaving the JCPOA and set the scene for military confrontation.

FBI agents leaving a raid.

AP Photo/Julio Cortez

Journal Article - Contemporary Security Policy

Going it Alone: The Causes and Consequences of U.S. Extraterritorial Counterproliferation Enforcement

| Mar. 25, 2019

In 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1540, which acknowledged the non-state acquisition of weapons of mass destruction as a security threat and called on member states to implement “appropriate effective” domestic trade controls. The United States, however, has both promoted the multilateral implementation of strategic trade controls but has also increasingly resorted to extraterritorial enforcement of its counterproliferation rules. How can a multilateral, norms-based international regime like 1540 contend with extraterritorial enforcement based on national interests? We argue that increased U.S. extraterritorial counterproliferation policies are a consequence of the inconsistent implementation of resolution 1540, adaptive and resilient proliferation networks, and a history of expanding legal interpretations of jurisdiction. We find that while U.S. extraterritorial enforcement can effectively disrupt networks hiding in overseas jurisdictions, doing so creates disincentives for states to implement 1540 obligations and undermines broader nonproliferation objectives.