Authors: Colin H. Kahl, and Kenneth N. Waltz
September/October 2012
Foreign Affairs
A nuclear-armed Iran would not make the Middle East more secure, argues Colin Kahl; it would yield more terrorism and pose a risk of a nuclear exchange. Kenneth Waltz maintains that nuclear deterrence enhances stability, and if the price is more low-level conflict, so be it.
Request permission to republish or photocopy this Foreign Affairs article.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedInWhat effect would the fall of the Assad regime have on U.S. policy towards Syria?
Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies
The author analyzes the potentially serious consequences, both at home and abroad, of a lightly overseen drone program and makes recommendations for improving its governance.
A take-it-or-leave-it deal by the United States on the nuclear issue is the wrong strategy, says Ray Takeyh.
Micah Zenko says even though telling the United States that it should be more scared of Iran has failed so far, Israeli officials will...
This week's latest round of Iran talks seems to have done little to reconcile the two sides on the country's nuclear position, says CFR's...
This week's nuclear talks ended without resolving the issue of uranium enrichment, leaving Iran to potentially face tougher sanctions, says...
Print
Email
Share
Cite
