George Perkovich
The world would be a safer place if Iran did not enrich uranium. But contrary to the arguments hawks put forward, the United States is not in any position to prevent it from doing so.
President Bush is only half right to trumpet the spread of freedom as the main objective of U.S. foreign policy; the pursuit of justice is just as important. Broadening the focus would not only befit the United States' political tradition, but also help neutralize opposition from radical Islamists and critics of globalization.
Perkovich's postscript to his March/April 2003 essay "Bush's Nuclear Revolution: A Regime Change in Nonproliferation."
The White House's radical new strategy to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction will likely make the world less secure, not more.
Jonathan Schell's long-term predictions about nuclear proliferation overlook the imminent risks inherent in U.S. strategic policy. Reforming this policy requires active presidential leadership. And nuclear weapons have not yet brought the apocalypse of mutual destruction. They may actually help maintain peace.
If nation states continue to make and use plutonium, they risk nuclear weapons proliferation, environmental devastation and lost lives. Through the International Atomic Energy Agency or a new institution, a regime should be set up to manage storage, reduction and disposal of this costly carcinogen. Pressure to join the regime could come from tightening the purse-strings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But a new regime would also require precedent-setting behavior and support from the United States and Russia.