Latest news with #arms control
LBCI
18 hours ago
- Politics
- LBCI
In Beirut, US envoys push for answers on arms control and UNIFIL mandate
Report by Toni Mrad, English adaptation by Mariella Succar Two American envoys visited Lebanon this week to discuss two pressing issues: U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack focused on strengthening state control over weapons, while Morgan Ortagus emphasized the renewal of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) mandate. According to LBCI, the main purpose of the visit was to review the latest developments regarding the government's commitment to the American paper on arms control, which had been approved by the Lebanese government. The Lebanese side asked the U.S. delegation about the positions of other parties involved in the American proposal, namely Israel and Syria. According to LBCI, Barrack did not carry any Israeli response to the proposal, though reports suggest he may travel to Tel Aviv to obtain one. During meetings with Lebanese officials, Barrack heard from President Michel Aoun Lebanon's position on the importance of all parties adhering to the joint declaration, as well as support for the Lebanese Army and accelerated international steps to launch reconstruction efforts. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri emphasized that Israel's commitment to the ceasefire agreement and its withdrawal to internationally recognized borders is essential to achieving stability in Lebanon. Barrack's position was reported to be aligned with Lebanon regarding the expectation that Israel undertake similar measures. The issue of arms control was also discussed during a meeting with Army Commander General Rodolph Haykal, focusing on the army's plan to ensure weapons remain under state authority. Another key topic, the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate, was highlighted by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who stressed its importance in maintaining stability and supporting the army in extending state authority in southern Lebanon. According to LBCI, consultations at the United Nations are ongoing, with the United States reportedly favoring a gradual and responsible reduction in UNIFIL personnel. The two U.S. envoys are expected to return to Lebanon at the end of the month. It remains unclear whether they will bring an Israeli response and Syria's position on the American proposal, or whether the UNIFIL renewal process will be finalized by that time.
Yahoo
10-08-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump once openly discussed nuclear disarmament. What happened?
On Feb. 13, President Donald Trump did something truly rare — he made sense. In an Oval Office press meeting, for the first time in decades, a sitting president openly discussed nuclear disarmament: 'There's no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many... You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they're building nuclear weapons,' he said. He's right. China and India have unconditional no-first-use pledges in place. So did Russia until we continued to expand our already insane nuclear arsenal and exit such arms control agreements as the ABM Treaty and INF Treaty. The United States refused to come to the table. That's why Trump's expressed desire to return to negotiations was so promising. Returning to negotiations refers to multilateral nuclear reduction agreements on the premise of minimum effective deterrence. The commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Hiroshima and its deadly toll this past week gives us an opportunity to understand just what is at stake. That devastating first use of the atomic bomb killed at least 70,000 people instantly, a legacy of tragedy the world will not forget. Alas, Trump's initial promise of nuclear disarmament was short-lived. And what has actually happened since this unexpected moment of clarity from a leader who thrives on chaos? More chaos. Trump violated the war powers clause in launching a military strike against Iran's nuclear bases, and now, he refuses to rule out more strikes. Even if he deterred Iran's nuclear program, it put the U.S. directly at odds with other nuclear powers. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has even come out to say that other countries would simply provide Iran with nuclear his actions, Trump pushed us closer to the brink of nuclear war once more. The U.S. war machine and its many benefactors will stoke this, spurring on a new arms race to line their pockets. The fact is, more bombs will not solve nuclear proliferation — not by building them, not by hoarding them, and certainly not by using them on other countries. The president must make a choice: Protect our nation and the world, or instigate nuclear Armageddon. The U.S. could take the lead on denuclearization, cut back our bloated military budget, finally sign a no-first-use pledge, and actually make the world safer. Or we could keep feeding the weapons manufacturers, spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon while ignoring the fact that our biggest threats — climate change, poverty, and access to health care — can't be solved with bombs. But right now, we're on the wrong path — the path of excessive militarization and the risk of total annihilation. The path that mortgages our environment, livelihoods, and our souls to feed the insatiable war profiteers. Eighty years ago, one nuclear bomb incinerated over 100,000 people in Hiroshima. Right now, the U.S. has the equivalent of 50,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. And the Pentagon is spending $2 trillion on a whole new generation of nuclear weapons. The time of mutually assured destruction between two nuclear superpowers is over. The last thing we need is a new nuclear arms race. But that's what our corrupt Congress and war profiteers are betting on. Should Trump decide to take the denuclearization path, it could change the very fabric of America. Imagine the impact of just 15% of the Pentagon's budget going toward lead-free pipes and safe drinking water, affordable housing, and universal health care. It could single-handedly revitalize the American dream. Would we really be less secure if we spent only $850 billion a year preparing for war instead of our current $1 trillion? This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
