The question is not just whether the world is a better place with the NPT than without it, but whether this treaty will actually lead to complete nuclear disarmament

Today's doubts about Iran's nuclear program are anything but new.

The risk of nuclear warfare in the Persian Gulf represents a present and clear danger to world peace, requiring the mobilization of the international community to intervene.

The Trump administration is reportedly negotiating a “flexible” nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. In the Middle East, “flexibility” on uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing is not a good idea.

The United States and Iran may be heading to a showdown at the Strait of Hormuz that could potentially lead to war. The result could be many deaths, serious damage to the world economy, and an Iran hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Is there any way out?

Trump withdraws from the Iranian nuclear deal, risking more instability and nuclear proliferation.

A study of hawkish, anti-reformist accounts shows what President Rouhani is up against.

Washington’s Iran policy is taking a dangerous path, but European leaders have an opportunity to shape the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 

Last week, Israel's  influential paper, Haaretz, led its front page with a rather decisive headline: "Israel rejects US-backed Arab plan for conference on nuclear-free Mideast." The problem, however, is that the country announced no such decision.

The answer is "probably," but prevention via diplomacy is still the best course.

For more than 40 years, Turkey has been a quiet custodian of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, Washington positioned intermediate-range nuclear missiles and bombers there to serve as a bulwark against the Soviet Union (i.e., to defend the region against Soviet attack and to influence Soviet strategic calculations). In the event of a Soviet assault on Europe, the weapons were to be fired as one of the first retaliatory shots. But as the Cold War waned, so, too, did the weapons' strategic value.

The striking realignment of alliances and priorities in the Middle East and beyond could impact Iran’s nuclear decisions.

Letting the arms embargo expire would have little practical effect on Iran’s arms transfers. Extending it could have disastrous consequences for the 2015 nuclear deal.

The United States claimed that, by killing the Iranian military commander, it was “deterring” future attacks. But in this situation, deterrence is nowhere to be found.

If the United States had developed post-Cold War institutions, it wouldn’t be flailing on foreign policy the way it is today

At the beginning of 2008, the nuclear power industry's euphoria over the much-hyped "nuclear renaissance" was in full swing. But as that year drew to a close, the hopes for a revival seemed delayed, if not derailed, due to faltering world economies. Little has changed this year to alter that prospect. As the global financial crisis has continued, demand for energy has plummeted along with the world's stock markets. Such news may help calm international security experts, who fear that a proliferation of nuclear energy know-how could lead to nuclear weapons proliferation.

The director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on Syria, terrorists looking for chemical weapons, and the need to watch out for weapons that haven't even been invented yet

Multilateral diplomacy is hardly destined to become a spectator sport. For most people--for almost all people, really--"talk shops" like the United Nations fail to get the blood racing. If successful, they tend to produce results gradually, fitfully, and by a series of compromises.

The nuclear weapons states seem to have accepted the idea that a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons—known informally as the ban treaty—could indeed be the result of a UN conference being held this June and July in New York City. Nevertheless, some observers maintain that even if a ban treaty were to be negotiated, it … Continued

Russia’s proposal to create yet another international treaty dealing with chemical and biological weapons doesn’t seem to properly address existing problems and runs the risk of creating fragmentation and legal uncertainties.