Non Proliferation Treaty

Soon after President Obama's speech before AIPAC's annual convention, the potential attack on Iran, which just a few weeks earlier had seemed so imminent, faded quietly into the background.

As the drumbeats for war on Iran increase, we who espouse effective, security-enhancing, non-military conflict resolution options must not be similarly ignored. It is time that our leaders and our media also put these options on the table.

It is no secret that Iran is developing its nuclear capacity in a clandestine and deceptive manner. Yet ironically it is our reaction to Iranian intransigence that is more likely to lead to an Iranian bomb. And it's not for the reasons that many have cited.

In the process of such diplomatic engagement, is it not possible that we make peace with the Iranian regime through a commonality of purpose and an exchanging of ideas?

The campaign to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms brings to mind a doctor who focuses on the symptoms while overlooking the disease. If Tehran is indeed building the bomb, it quest is a particular manifestation of a larger problem: nuclear proliferation.

We need to prevent Venezuela from upsetting the balance of the Latin American nuclear weapon free zone and punching yet another hole in an already weather-beaten global nonproliferation framework.

The enrichment of uranium by Iran is not a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it is generally acknowledged that the NPT gives Iran the right to enrich uranium.

In May 2010, both diplomats and nongovernmental leaders are gathering at the UN in New York for the 40 Year Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference -- as mandated by the treaty itself -- to assess how the various parties are complying with the various obligations they undertook four long decades ago.

Since the non-proliferation treaty took effect in 1970, almost all nuclear nations stopped building nuclear weapons. But even so, they've resisted honoring their full obligations under the NPT.

How could the 21st century suck big-time? Let us count the ways. 1) sex and demographics. By 2050, about 9 billion people will be competing for an ...

It's hard to deny that the new START treaty represents an advance for nuclear disarmers, particularly after the lean years of the Bush administration.

With START signed by the U.S. and Russia, and pressure mounting to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions, a few troubling issues need to be addressed. The President's vision of a nuclear free world is correct. His critics are dead wrong.

Thanks to President Obama's initiative, perhaps the season for nuclear disarmament has finally arrived. A new U.S.-Russia treaty, while modest, is important and encouraging.

Did President Obama set the bar too high? Last April he embraced the goal of a nuclear free world. Will he now be jeered and criticized if he achieves only the inevitably smaller steps that are feasible?

At the moment, there remain more than 23,000 nuclear weapons, 96 percent of them in the hands of Russia and the United States. But this outrageous record is only part of the story.

Achieving what Obama calls a "world without nuclear weapons" means more than just talking. It also means recognizing -- and implementing -- Washington's own NPT obligations to disarm.

The US is entering a season of key international negotiations, during which two arms control treaties that have been languishing for years will hopefully be completed.

There is no doubt that the time is right for our President to assert the importance of working through global cooperation to achieve the mutally-desirable goal of planetary survival.

I'm asking Obama to begin talks on a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, where all countries in the region, including Israel, agree not to manufacture, acquire, test or possess nuclear weapons.

This is an interesting and refreshing subtext in Obama's entire speech -- he says things are "facts" and not opinions. Considering the lunacy that passes for "political debate" on American television screens -- where there are always two points of view, and every "fact" is subject to spin from one side or another -- it is a breath of fresh air.