منع اشاعه

If the United States strikes, it needs to choose targets and weapon systems based on a strategic plan that is well explained to the world.

On August 28, 2013, the International Atomic Energy Agency released its latest reports on Iran and Syria. The Iran report assesses the status of the regime's nuclear activities and the agency's efforts to implement a safeguards agreement. The Syria report discusses the alleged nuclear site at Dair Alzour, destroyed by

If Washington and its allies decide to strike the Syrian regime in response to last week's chemical attack, they should strike hard, with the aim of achieving significant political and military effects.

The chemical weapons massacre in Damascus has mobilized Assad's foreign opponents, giving the United States a new reason and new partners for a more serious response.

If it becomes reasonably clear that the Assad regime was responsible for today's apparent chemical strikes, nothing less than direct military action will alter its calculus or prevent further massacres.

Institute counselor Dennis Ross addressed the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's Stahl Center.

In the Summer 2013 issue of International Security, Washington Institute managing director Michael Singh participated in a debate regarding the future of nuclear talks with Iran. In the previous issue, he and Harvard professor James Sebenius had contributed the article "Is a Nuclear Deal with Iran Possible? An Analytical Framework,"

Preserving an open-ended multilateral approach or allowing Russia to determine what is offered is not a prescription for successful nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

The president-elect's recent writings provide a basis for judging how he will approach the nuclear issue.