Latest news with #nuclearpolicy
South China Morning Post
29-06-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
US attack on Iran shakes East Asia's faith in non-proliferation norms
US President Donald Trump immediately hailed the raid as a 'spectacular military success', boasting on national television that Iran's key enrichment installations had been 'completely and totally obliterated'. Some quickly interpreted the strike as a new policy doctrine. Matthew Kroenig, vice-president and senior director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Centre for Strategy and Security, argued in The Washington Post that the US strikes signal a bold new counterproliferation military force policy to deter nations from pursuing nuclear weapons. This marked the first time US warplanes joined Israel in openly attacking a nuclear programme, using seven B-2 stealth bombers . The June operation shattered decades of precedent and set the stage for broader upheaval in global nuclear deterrence. First, to Pyongyang, the strikes reinforced the government's narrative regarding nuclear capabilities. On March 8, North Korean state media paraded the country's leader, Kim Jong-un , who inspected a 'nuclear-powered strategic guided missile submarine'. Such a vessel, likely built with Russian help, would give North Korea a true sea-based second-strike capability.
The Guardian
28-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘There's a significant lack of knowledge': Iranian American legislator on countries' tangled history amid conflict
Arizona congresswoman Yassamin Ansari brings an unusually personal perspective to the US's fraught relationship with Iran. The daughter of two Iranian parents who fled their homeland – her father as a student in the 1970s who couldn't return after the 1979 revolution, her mother as a 17-year-old in 1981 escaping the new regime's restrictions on women – Ansari grew up immersed in the complexities of US-Iran relations. This deep familiarity with both Iranian domestic politics and the tangled history between Washington and Tehran has given the Democratic freshman a distinctive edge in debates over military strikes, sanctions and diplomatic engagement. As tensions teetered for 12 days, culminating in the direct US bombardment on Iranian nuclear facilities, Ansari finds herself navigating between hawkish calls for regime change and concerns about empowering Iran's authoritarian government. We spoke to Ansari about how her background influences her approach to one of foreign policy's most intractable issues. It's a topic I not only grew up learning about at home but also studied formally during my undergraduate years. I have a minor in Iranian studies, I speak the language [Farsi], and I wrote my college thesis on Iran's nuclear breakout capacity. So I've been working on and thinking about these issues for a long time. When it comes to US-Iran policy – especially during the Trump administration – I think there has been a significant lack of knowledge. And even within Congress, there's often limited information about the historical and political context – not just since 1979, but also what led up to that point and how we arrived at the current situation. I don't believe the strikes were the right move for several reasons. First and foremost, we wouldn't even be in this position if Trump hadn't unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA [in 2018]. That agreement would have prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and created a framework for diplomacy. Even after the withdrawal, we were in the midst of negotiations. Based on briefings I've received from subject matter experts, those negotiations were progressing – until the US suddenly shifted the goalposts and demanded zero uranium enrichment, which had never been part of the deal. That effectively derailed talks. Beyond that, Trump never made the case to Congress or the American public. There was no presentation of intelligence justifying strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. In a country with such a fraught history of military interventions in the Middle East – from the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup in Iran to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – that lack of transparency is especially dangerous. I'm not familiar with all the specifics of that proposal, but I see what you're getting at. And I do think Trump's actions have emboldened the Islamic Republic, a regime that is deeply unpopular with the majority of Iranians. Since the recent escalation, we've seen reports that hundreds of people have been arrested on espionage charges – charges often used by the regime to imprison political opponents. Iran's most notorious prison, Evin, is full of some of the country's brightest minds, including Nobel laureates. It's heartbreaking. Trump's actions have not only hurt US foreign policy interests and increased the risk of a wider war, but they've also given the regime cover to intensify its domestic repression. During the past two weeks, we've even seen the government black out the internet to prevent communication with the outside world. This is a regime focused entirely on its own survival – and it will do whatever it takes, including more arrests and crackdowns. We should be supporting Iranian civilians, not strengthening the regime or risking another war. Exactly. I think any sort of US-led military intervention or regime change would be a terrible mistake. I was genuinely terrified during the days Trump was making contradictory threats – one moment urging civilians in Tehran to evacuate, the next talking about regime change, and then suddenly calling for peace. That kind of unpredictability is dangerous. There are also groups like the MEK – a cult-like organization that was once designated a terrorist group by the US – that are trying to position themselves as the alternative. They've paid people like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani to support them, but they could be even more repressive than the current regime. That said, there are ways the US could support the Iranian people – like helping provide secure internet access or advocating for the release of political prisoners. But instead we're seeing more crackdowns because the regime feels threatened and is reacting in the only way it knows: repression. Not directly, but many of us are still pushing for the War Powers Resolution to come to a vote so members of Congress can make their positions clear. It's important that we reassert Congress's constitutional authority over decisions of war and peace. Unfortunately, the Republican lead on the resolution, Representative Thomas Massie, recently said he no longer sees the need for [the resolution] due to the ceasefire. I strongly disagree. The resolution isn't just about this moment – it's about reaffirming that only Congress has the power to declare war, as the constitution lays out. Trump should never have taken unilateral military action. We've already seen the consequences. I know the Senate is moving forward with it, and it'll be important to see where key leaders stand. You're right, I'm definitely not the spokesperson for all Iranian Americans, but I can share some perspective. Nearly all Iranian Americans strongly oppose the regime. That's because most of our families came here after fleeing it, either during the revolution in 1979 or in the years since. But there's a wide range of views on what the solution should be. Some Iranian Americans, including a sizable portion who voted for Trump, believed he would help topple the regime. I remember when Trump posted 'Make Iran great again', a segment of the diaspora was genuinely excited. Many of those people support the son of the former Shah as a potential leader. Others – myself included – strongly oppose US-led regime change. The US has a bad track record in this region. The 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mosaddeq is still remembered bitterly by many Iranians. He was democratically elected and wanted to nationalize Iran's oil, but the US and UK didn't want that. So they overthrew him. Then came the Shah, then the revolution, and now this regime. So while we all oppose the current regime, there's disagreement about what comes next and how to get there. I think most Iranian Americans fear war and want a better future for Iranians – without more violence, repression or foreign intervention. My dad came to the US in the early 1970s on a student visa to attend the University of Oregon for his engineering degree. He planned to go back but once the revolution happened, it wasn't safe to return, so he stayed. My mom fled in 1981. Women's rights had already been severely restricted – forced hijab, schools being shut down. She happened to be a US citizen because her father had done a medical residency in the US in the 60s. So her parents sent her here alone at 17 to live with a family in Delaware. She talks about it a lot, about how she and her family opposed the revolution even though it was popular at the time. Coming here alone was traumatic. She went through deep depression for years before the rest of her family could join her. That experience shaped a lot of how I was raised. She always stressed not taking freedom and democracy for granted, and that's something I carry with me in my work today, especially when I see authoritarian threats here in the US.
The Guardian
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Which countries have nuclear weapons – and are they likely to use them?
Nuclear weapons are front of mind after the US struck a number of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons sites. How many countries have nuclear weapons? Which countries are capable of building nuclear weapons? What is the non-proliferation treaty? And why are some countries allowed to have nuclear weapons and not others? Guardian Australia's Matilda Boseley explains
Wall Street Journal
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
White House Says Iran Deal Needs to Include No Uranium Enrichment
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said a deal with Iran must include "no uranium enrichment." She added that Iran has the components necessary to build a nuclear weapon. Asked about U.S. support for a regime change in Iran, Leavitt said the administration's priority was on making sure Iran didn't obtain a nuclear weapon.
Russia Today
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
India expanded its nuclear stockpile in 2024
India expanded its nuclear arsenal in 2024 and continues to develop new types of delivery systems for the weapons, according to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published on Monday. SIPRI is an independent international institute that conducts research on conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. According to the SIPRI 2025 yearbook, India had 180 nuclear stored warheads as of January 2025, while Pakistan had an estimated 170. India has strengthened its nuclear triad by commissioning its second domestically built nuclear-powered submarine, the 'INS Arighaat', which can launch strategic weapons from the sea, in addition to land and air-based capabilities, the SIPRI noted. India's nuclear policy, established in 2003, states that the country will only use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack on its territory or forces, and will not be the first to conduct a nuclear strike in a conflict. SIPRI, which updates its global nuclear forces data annually, said Pakistan is continuing to develop new nuclear delivery systems and produce more fissile material, indicating a potential expansion of its nuclear arsenal in the coming years. 🇮🇳🇵🇰 India and Pakistan expanded their nuclear arsenals and continued to develop new delivery systems in 2024. In early 2025 tensions between India and Pakistan briefly spilled over into armed conflict. Read more 🔗 According to the Stockholm-based institute, Russia and the US have the largest nuclear stockpiles, with 5,459 and 5,177 warheads, respectively. A recent report by SIPRI pointed out that global military spending increased more year-on-year in 2024 than at any time since the Cold War. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea all have missiles that can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads and are modernizing these systems, the institute said. China has 600 nuclear warheads, 24 of which are ready for use, and has developed missiles that can carry multiple warheads, a capability that India, Pakistan, and North Korea are also trying to develop, it added.
