The 2009 Statement of Principles of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism are, according the U.S. Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, "a set of broad nuclear security goals that encompass a range of deterrence, detection, prevention, and response objectives. The eight principles contained within the SOP aim to develop partnership capacity to combat nuclear terrorism, consistent with national legal authorities and obligations as well as relevant international legal frameworks such as the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1373 and 1540".

The extraordinary risks posed by a nuclear-armed Iran require Washington and its partners to step up activity on economic sanctions and diplomacy, even while preparing military options, says CFR President Richard N. Haass.

Richard N. Haass argues that Iran's nuclear program may be the most important international issue in 2012.

The European Union's embargo on Iranian oil may bring Iran to the negotiating table but is unlikely to halt its controversial nuclear program, says CFR's Matthew Kroenig.

The EU's oil embargo is part of a larger Western effort to pressure Iran to reengage over its disputed nuclear program, but some debate the merits of intensified diplomacy with the regime in Tehran.

CFR Senior Fellows Ray Takeyh and Matthew Kroenig discuss the escalating tension with Iran and the challenges it poses for US strategy in this Council on Foreign Relations Special Briefing.

Leslie H. Gelb discusses the need to examine the rationale for, and potential consequences of, going to war with Iran.

Ray Takeyh says Iran's recent aggression is based on Tehran diligently pursuing a three-track policy that involves provocation of the international community and making noises about diplomacy as it relentlessly marches toward the bomb.

The latest revelations over Iran's uranium enrichment activities have triggered debate over a slew of policy options from more sanctions to preventive strikes.

Micah Zenko and Emma Welch argue that while the Republican presidential candidates overwhelmingly describe the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability as "unacceptable" and endorse the use of military force if that were necessary to prevent an Iranian bomb, there is a complete absence of any details on how the use of force could accomplish this ambitious objective.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave this statement on January 10, 2012 regarding Iran's enrichment program at the Qom facility.

Sanctions over Iran's nuclear program have triggered threats involving the strategic Strait of Hormuz and new debate over the methods chosen to pressure Tehran.

Captain Bradley S. Russell, USN and Max Boot argue that Iran must realize that by initiating direct hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz, it risks American retaliation against their covert nuclear-weapons program.

Frank G. Klotz argues that both India and Pakistan have an interest in taking steps to enhance strategic stability in the region and to reduce the possibility of nuclear conflict resulting from miscalculation or deliberate escalation in a crisis.

Paul B. Stares argues that in the wake of Kim Jong-il's death, rather than wait for signs out of Pyongyang, the United States should now signal its interest in developing a more productive relationship with North Korea.

Scott A. Snyder asks, "What are the prospects for a unified, nuclear-free Korea?"

Following the death of leader Kim Jong-il, the transition of power in North Korea could see Pyongyang engaging in further provocative activities, says CFR's Paul Stares.

Scott A. Snyder discusses the implications of Kim Jong-Il's death.

Kim Jong-il's death has prompted discussion about the future of the isolated country and its nuclear weapons program. Experts cited in this CFR Backgrounder believe a post-Kim regime in North Korea would remain a tough nuclear negotiator.

Frank G. Klotz, Susan J. Koch, and Franklin C. Miller argue that as the United States and Russia continue to reduce long-range, strategic nuclear weapons to increasingly lower levels, a disparity in tactical nuclear weapons has serious implications for the overall nuclear balance between the two countries and the continued efficacy of the U.S. nuclear umbrella for its allies.