Iran Nuclear Negotiations

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act should be repealed or amended. The alternatives are extending a disastrous war of choice or ignoring the law.

Experts examine the international law issued raised by the U.S. threats and potential strikes against Iran.

The human rights crisis in Iran reveals the limits of a legal system designed to restrain force even when restraint carries profound human costs.

On Aug. 28, three European nations triggered snapback of the UN's Iran sanctions. Kelsey Davenport explains its impact, next steps, and why it matters.

Former State Department attorney analyzes U.S. letter to UN Security Council that presented legal arguments for U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Why did Israel, and then the United States, decide to attack Iran now, even as U.S.-Iranian negotiations sputtered along?

Whether newly announced ceasefire actually leads to end hostilities will not change the new reality: a comprehensive agreement is less likely now than before the bombing

An expert policy and legal assessment of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and what comes next.

Part of our ongoing series on the Israel-Iran war.

"Another legal framework – the ongoing armed conflict framework – is more factually and legally viable than the anticipatory or preventive self-defense frameworks."

The Israel-Iran crisis will be a key test for how the Trump administration handles national security crises and its ability to respond.

The Trump administration should focus on messaging pragmatic objectives for a deal and de-emphasizing U.S. efforts to exert “maximum pressure” on Iran while talks are ongoing.