"I find hope in the work of long-established groups such as the Arms Control Association...[and] I find hope in younger anti-nuclear activists and the movement around the world to formally ban the bomb."
Country Resources
If U.S. and Iranian negotiators return to Islamabad for a second round of talks, the United States and Iran will need to bridge the gaps on key nuclear issues to reach an agreement. With pragmatic diplomacy and the political will to compromise, a deal is possible. But the nonproliferation value of any nuclear limitations will be minimal without effective verification. Defining the scope of inspections and monitoring mechanisms is arguably the most important component of an effective deal and should be a U.S. priority.
President Donald Trump’s April 7 threat that he might escalate U.S. attacks on Iran so that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” should profoundly alarm every U.S. and global citizen.
Special envoy Steve Witkoff’s failure to learn the nuclear file and surround himself with technical experts to negotiate a deal is a diplomatic disservice.
But it is unclear if Tehran is willing to negotiate or if Israel would agree to a ceasefire.
The Trump administration engaged in three rounds of talks with Iran before striking Iran on Feb. 28. Comments from President Donald Trump's lead negotiator, Steve Witkoff, however, suggest that the White House missed a diplomatic opportunity because the negotiating team was ill-prepared for talks and lacked the technical expertise to engage in effective diplomacy.
U.S. President Donald Trump continues to allege, without evidence, that Iran’s nuclear program posed an imminent threat to the United States. The following are answers to frequently asked questions about Iran’s proliferation risk and nuclear security issues.
U.S. President Donald Trump and senior administration officials have offered conflicting justifications for the renewed U.S. strikes on Iran, including the claim that Iran’s nuclear and missile programs posed an imminent threat to the United States. There is no evidence, however, to support those claims. Read this issue brief for answers to FAQs on these claims.
The U.S.-Israeli military operation prompted Iranian counterstrikes and occurred two days after U.S. and Iranian negotiators met in Geneva for negotiations on a nuclear deal.
Eight years after abandoning the 2015 nuclear deal that was effectively blocking Iran’s path to a bomb, and less than a year after Israeli and U.S. forces struck key Iranian nuclear facilities, U.S. President Donald Trump has dispatched his envoys to try to persuade Iran to permanently give the option to enrich uranium or face another, possibly much larger, U.S. attack.
Another U.S. aerial military strike on Iran, as President Trump said today he is considering, would not advance the goal of blocking Iran’s potential pathways to acquire nuclear weapons if its leaders were to decide to do so.
With signals pointing to a resumption of U.S.-Iran talks, the Trump administration has another opportunity to reduce Tehran’s proliferation risk and the likelihood of the United States getting sucked into further, counterproductive military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program. Going into talks, the United States should prioritize restoring IAEA safeguards and move away from unrealistic demands on enrichment.
The U.S. president said he would act “immediately” if Tehran takes steps to rebuild its nuclear program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors passed a resolution urging Iran to fully implement safeguards on its nuclear program and provide information about its stockpile of enriched uranium.
IAEA member states must overcome their political differences and unite to support the IAEA in rebuilding transparency and verification in Iran.
Neither Iran nor the United States appears willing to take the first step to begin talks.