Nuclear Escalation

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

In 2026, it is highly likely that countries such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia will move closer to developing the technical means—and political motivation—to build a bomb.

There’s no shortage of opportunities to reduce the chances that a war game – or the plot of “Dynamite” – is never played out in real-time.

The science is sound, the stockpile is strong, and the call to test a nuclear bomb has no technical foundation. Resuming testing would not make America safer.

Just Security’s Tess Bridgeman is joined by Richard Nephew to discuss where things stand and what a path forward for Iran's nuclear program might look like.

The White House's future BDA briefings on the Iran strikes will likely project certainty where analysis still urges caution.

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

The White House’s legal justifications for attacking Iran are unconvincing and raise concerns about unauthorized use of force. Congress should push back.

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

The constellation of forces in Israel, the United States, and beyond complicates efforts to find an off-ramp to the war.

Strategic implications of Israel’s strikes on Iran and key questions policymakers should ask to navigate what comes next.

An assessment of the implications of Israel's strikes on Iran this morning for nuclear diplomacy and regional stability.