Jamie Fly and Matthew H. Kroenig argue that drawing red lines linked to the guaranteed use of force by Washington and its allies could be the best way to avoid conflict with Iran.

When it comes to Iran's nuclear program, then, the United States and its allies should get out of the way and let Iran's worst enemies -- its own leaders -- gum up the process on their own.

In his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Scott Snyder argues that the United States should redouble its efforts to shape North Korea's strategic environment rather than try to identify the right combination of carrots and sticks to be used in a negotiation with Pyongyang.

Steven A. Cook states that Iran's development of a nuclear weapon won't spur its neighbors to get the bomb.

The White House released this statement on March 27, 2012 during the U.S.' participation in the nuclear security summit in Seoul, South Korea.

UN Security Council Resolution 699 was adopted on June 17, 1991. The resolution gave the IAEA and the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) authority to conduct inspections for weapons in Iraq and destroy, remove or render the weapons harmless.

Micah Zenko discusses whether Israel should accept a nuclear ban.

Ray Takeyh examines the roots of Iran's desire to advance its nuclear program.

The United States will "increasingly seek partnerships with other like-minded countries [in the region] to ensure global stability, security, and prosperity." In a new volume of collected essays, CFR Senior Fellow Scott Snyder writes that one of the strongest partners for the United States is South Korea.

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.

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.

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.

Ray Takeyh says Iran's rulers view possession of a nuclear bomb as a means to return to the international fold on their own terms.

Secretary of State Clinton gave these remarks on December 7, 2011 at the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Review Conference in Geneva, Switzerland.

Micah Zenko argues that the ouster of Muammar al-Qaddafi will motivate other dictators to seek out nuclear weapons.

Elliott Abrams, Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, and John Hannah, argue that former Vice President Dick Cheney advocation's for a U.S. strike to destroy the al-Kibar nuclear reactor built by Syria and North Korea was based on sound judgment.

Ray Takeyh argues that despite economic sanctions and other attempts to curtail technological development in Iran, its nuclear program has grown in sophistication and capability over the past two decades.

Matthew H. Kroenig argues that the world will not be safer if the United States had no nuclear weapons.

Emma L. Belcher says the recent detterence of a North Korean ship carrying nuclear material highlights the need for criminal codes that take nuclear crimes seriously.