Illegal U.S.-Israel Attacks Not Justifiable on Nonproliferation Grounds

Description

President Trump’s premeditated, illegal attack on Iran aimed at regime change is an illegal war of choice, it is not supported by the American people, it was not authorized by Congress as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, and it is a grave violation of international. law, including the UN Charter.

Body

Statement on U.S.-Israel strikes against Iran

February 28, 2026

President Trump's premeditated, illegal attack on Iran aimed at regime change is an illegal war of choice, it is not supported by the American people, it was not authorized by Congress as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, and it is a grave violation of international law.

The combined U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran are not justifiable on nonproliferation grounds. There was no imminent nuclear threat from Iran that justifies this reckless, brazen attack that has metastasized into a major regional conflict.

Trump and his aides have in recent days and hours claimed, without credible evidence, that Iran had restarted its nuclear program, had enough available nuclear material to build a bomb within days and was developing long-range missiles that could "soon" be capable of hitting the United States. All three of these claims are false.

This is the second time in less than a year that the United States and Israel, both nuclear-armed states, have launched attacks on Iran in the midst of ongoing U.S.-Iranian negotiations regarding Tehran's nuclear program.

As the Omani Foreign Minister and mediator of the talks reported just hours before Trump's attacks on Feb. 28, the U.S.-Iranian negotiations were very serious and making significant progress toward an effective, verifiable, lasting deal that could have blocked Iran's capabilities to build nuclear weapons.

The United States could have and should have negotiated in good faith with Iran to arrive at effective solutions that address concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and stockpiles of enriched uranium, including by securing the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who were ejected from Iran following the June 2025 U.S.-Israeli attacks. The return of the inspectors will be further delayed in the midst of a potentially drawn-out conflict. Without effective monitoring, the whereabouts and security of Iran's nuclear material will now become even more uncertain.

Although Iran's current leadership is repressive and the Iranian people deserve to choose their own government, war is not the answer. The U.S. Congress and responsible states around the world have a solemn moral and legal duty to oppose this rogue aggression, beginning with emergency legislation and international mediation to stop further hostilities by all sides.

—Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, Thomas Countryman, Chair of the Board of Directors, and Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy 

Sections
PressRoom

Tell Congress: No Funding for Nuclear Testing

Description

For the first time in decades, a U.S. president is threatening to restart nuclear weapons testing — a dangerous and unnecessary move that would put countless lives, communities, and even our planet at risk. This issue is too important to our future for our elected officials to stay silent. Let your representative know that we cannot allow Trump to drag us further into a disastrous global arms race.

Body

For the first time in decades, a U.S. president is threatening to restart nuclear weapons testing — a dangerous and unnecessary move that would put countless lives, communities, and even our planet at risk.

Past U.S. nuclear tests — including above-ground tests conducted decades ago from Nevada to New Mexico to the Marshall Islands — spread radioactive fallout that poisoned entire communities and ecosystems, leaving a legacy of cancer and contamination that continues today. And while testing methods have changed, restarting any type of explosive tests today would knowingly recreate that suffering and shatter the global taboo that has helped keep our world safe for more than 30 years. 

Experts agree that there is no military or technical justification for explosive nuclear weapons testing, but there are potentially devastating consequences if we test again. Other countries have already signaled that if the U.S. resumes nuclear weapons testing, they will follow suit, further fueling the global nuclear arms race now underway.

Congress has the power to stop this — they can block any funding that would allow explosive nuclear weapons testing to resume. This issue is too important to our future for our elected officials to stay silent.


Email your Rep today: Let your representative know that we cannot allow Trump to drag us further into a disastrous global arms race. Your voice matters.

 

Firebreaks: Mitigating the Risks of AI Integration into Nuclear Operations

Description

ACA has partnered with the UC Berkeley Risk & Security Lab and the European Leadership Network to bring together leading scholars of AI policy and nuclear weapons operations to develop a menu of specific, targeted, and actionable policies for mitigating AI integration risks.

Body

The Firebreaks project addresses Carnegie Corporation of New York’s call for solutions to address how and where technological developments affect nuclear risks and identify solutions for reducing these dangers. Through this project, the Arms Control Association (ACA), Berkeley Risk and Security Lab (BRSL), and the European Leadership Network will deliver a comprehensive menu of specific options to further advance the conversation on artificial intelligence (AI) safety and security in nuclear operations.

Learn more here: https://europeanleadershipnetwork.org/firebreaks-mitigating-the-risks-of-ai-integration-into-nuclear-operations/

 

Subject Resources
Emerging Technologies

STATEMENT: Renewed U.S. Military Attacks on Iran Not Justified on Nonproliferation Grounds, Say Nuclear Experts

Description

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.

Body
Statement on Threat of Possible U.S. Strikes on Iran
 
Feb. 20, 2026
 
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. Rather, a U.S. attack would undermine ongoing diplomacy between Iran and the United States and damage efforts to secure return international inspectors to sensitive sites that were bombed in 2025 by Israel and the United States. Even a “limited” U.S. military strike runs a serious risk of igniting a wider, more intense, and prolonged regional conflict, and such an attack would be inconsistent with the U.S. and international law.
 
American military action in June 2025 severely disrupted Iran’s uranium enrichment program, even if the operation did not ‘obliterate’ the program, as the President initially claimed. In the wake of those attacks, Iran’s major uranium enrichment sites remain idle but it does still retain significant quantities of enriched uranium. However, there is no indication Iran is close to “weaponizing” its nuclear material that justifies unilateral military strikes on Iranian nuclear, military, or leadership targets.
 
Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away. Further military action would lead us further away from the necessary objective of accounting for Iran’s remaining stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and once again derail negotiations to effectively and verifiably block its potential pathways to the bomb.
 
Iranian and U.S. officials only recently resumed talks to resolve mutual concerns and both sides should continue to work without delay to arrive at pragmatic solutions that address international concerns about Iran's residual nuclear capabilities and materials stockpiles.
 
At this point, when Iran may finally be prepared to provide guarantees - including a resumption of intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and a possible “suspension” of uranium enrichment for a certain period of time - further U.S. military attacks on Iran would very likely drive the Iranian regime away from negotiations and strengthen the argument inside Iran that only possession of nuclear weapons can protect the regime from further attacks by the United States. Other nations - in the Middle East and beyond - will likely draw a similar conclusion, raising the risk of wider proliferation of nuclear weapons in the year ahead.
 
A U.S. bombardment in support of unarticulated, vague, or unrealistic goals would not advance the current negotiations between Iran and the U.S. Instead, it would doom those talks to failure. Rather than intimidating Iran into submission, it is more likely to cause leaders in Tehran to react with an unprecedented level of attacks on U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf region and partners throughout the Middle East, which could soon become a long, expensive and bloody regional war.  
 
As we noted last year, unilateral military action against Iran would also be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, which gives the power to declare war to the Congress. There is no standing authorization for the use of military force against Iran, as required by the War Powers Act. Furthermore, the rational for any U.S. military action against Iran has not been debated, let alone, authorized by the UN Security Council. At a time when the Administration is seeking to make America “great again," many of our partners around the world will see this as a clear violation of international law, further diminishing U.S. legitimacy and influence on the world stage.
 
At this critical juncture, the Arms Control Association calls upon the Administration not to undertake unilateral military action against Iran and to actively dissuade Israel, which itself possesses nuclear weapons, from launching its own strikes on Iran.
 
Before the president unilaterally commits U.S. forces into a conflict overseas, we call upon Congress to exercise its Constitutional duty and to exercise its Constitutional authority to thoroughly consider whether it should approve or disapprove a war of choice against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 
— Thomas Countryman, Chair of the Board of Directors, Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy 
Sections
PressRoom
Country Resources
Iran
Subscribe to