Iran, Nukes, and Global Conflict
An Analysis of the Recent US Military Action Against Iran: Geopolitical Context, Nuclear Proliferation, and Constitutional Authority
Executive Summary
The recent United States military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, represent a significant escalation in a long-standing international security challenge. These actions, which followed an initial week of Israeli attacks, were justified by U.S. and Israeli officials as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, citing an "imminent threat." This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the conflict, addressing concerns regarding the rationale for intervention, the comparison with other nuclear states, the constitutional framework governing military action, and the influence of the military-industrial complex.
The U.S. deployed advanced "bunker-buster" bombs (GBU-57 MOP) in their first combat use, signaling a highly strategic and powerful intervention aimed at deeply buried facilities. While President Trump declared the sites "obliterated," official damage assessments remain ongoing, and international bodies reported no external contamination, though internal risks exist. The intervention follows Iran's progressive non-compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had previously limited its nuclear program. This non-compliance, including enrichment to high purity levels and restricted IAEA access, significantly shortened Iran's potential "breakout time" to produce fissile material for a weapon, although U.S. intelligence maintains Iran is not actively pursuing a bomb.
A comparative analysis reveals distinct international approaches to nuclear proliferation. North Korea, an established nuclear power, faces a different diplomatic and military framework than Iran, which is a signatory (albeit non-compliant) to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and is not believed to possess a weapon. Afghanistan, in contrast, has no nuclear program. The perceived motivations behind Iran's nuclear ambitions are complex, ranging from regime security to regional power projection, and military action, while aiming to set back the program, could paradoxically strengthen Iran's resolve to pursue nuclear weapons as an ultimate deterrent.
The U.S. military action has ignited a critical debate regarding presidential war powers. While the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, presidents have historically exercised broader authority, often relying on existing authorizations or claims of responding to threats. This tension between executive and legislative authority is a recurring feature of U.S. foreign policy. Finally, the report examines the role of the military-industrial complex, noting how its economic interests can influence geopolitical narratives and military spending, though the specific use of MOP bombs in this instance appears to be a strategic demonstration of unique capability rather than merely inventory replenishment. The situation underscores the complex interplay of national security, international diplomacy, and domestic politics in shaping global conflicts.
I. The Recent US Military Action Against Iran: Context and Impact
A. Overview of the Strikes: Targets, Munitions (MOP Bombs), and Immediate Aftermath
On June 22, 2025, the United States launched what President Donald Trump described as "massive precision strikes" against three pivotal Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz.1 These U.S. military operations were undertaken following a preceding week of Israeli attacks, which had commenced on June 13 and targeted elements of Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure.1
The U.S. military's engagement involved the deployment of highly specialized "bunker-buster" bombs, specifically the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP).4 This marked the first known combat use of the MOP.4 These munitions are engineered to penetrate deeply buried and hardened facilities, a capability particularly critical for targets such as the Fordo enrichment plant, which is situated approximately 300 feet beneath a mountain.6 Reports indicated that a total of fourteen MOP bombs were utilized across two nuclear sites, including Fordo. In addition to the aerial bombardment, U.S. submarines contributed to the offensive by launching approximately 30 Tomahawk land attack missiles.4
President Trump publicly characterized the strikes as a "spectacular military success," asserting that they had "completely and fully obliterated" the targeted nuclear sites.1 However, U.S. defense officials maintained a more cautious stance, indicating that a comprehensive assessment of the damage inflicted by the attack was still in progress.5
Following the strikes, Iran's National Nuclear Safety System Center reported "no signs of contamination" at its nuclear facilities.4 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) corroborated this, confirming no immediate increase in off-site radiation levels.2 Despite the absence of external radiological impact, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi later issued a cautionary statement concerning the potential for radiological and chemical contamination
inside the Natanz facility, specifically highlighting uranium hexafluoride, a highly volatile and toxic gas. External radiation levels, however, remained normal.9 Satellite imagery subsequently revealed extensive damage to above-ground structures and power supply systems at Natanz. While the main underground centrifuge facility did not appear to have sustained a direct hit, the loss of power could have compromised its infrastructure.9 The Fordo site, designed to resist airstrikes due to its deep underground location, appeared externally undamaged.9 Iranian officials, including Atomic Energy Organization of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi, claimed that nuclear material had been moved out of the targeted sites prior to the strikes.5
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vehemently condemned the U.S. action, labeling it "warmongering" and an act by a "lawless administration" that had transgressed a "very big red line" by attacking nuclear facilities. He underscored Iran's inherent right to self-defense.1 Prior to the strikes, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a warning to the U.S. that attacks against the Islamic Republic would result in "irreparable damage".1
In response to heightened fears of Iranian retaliation against U.S. interests in the Middle East, the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem intensified evacuation flights for American citizens from Israel to Europe. Concurrently, Israel implemented a closure of its national airspace.4
B. Stated Justifications: US and Israeli Perspectives on Preventing Iran's Nuclear Program
The primary stated justification for the U.S. strikes was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.1 U.S. and Israeli leaders, including President Trump, asserted that Iran posed an "imminent threat" due to its alleged capability to rapidly assemble a nuclear weapon.1 This assertion was made even as U.S. intelligence agencies consistently assessed that Tehran was
not actively pursuing a bomb and had formally halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003.1 While the 2025 Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) assessment omitted a specific phrase from 2024 about Iran not undertaking key weapons-development activities, the core assessment of no active program remained. This significant divergence between political rhetoric of an "imminent threat" and the more nuanced, sometimes contradictory, intelligence assessments suggests a potential strategic framing of the threat. The "imminent threat" narrative may have been amplified to garner public and congressional support for military action, or to create a sense of urgency that aligned with the preferred policy outcome of pre-emptive strikes. This complex interplay between intelligence and political messaging is a critical factor in understanding the justifications presented for military intervention.
Republican lawmakers largely lauded President Trump's "bold, decisive action," emphasizing Iran's perceived rejection of diplomatic solutions and its stated aim to "wipe Israel off the map".12 They contended that the strike enhanced the security of America, Israel, and the broader world, framing it as a "precise, limited strike" not intended to initiate a "forever war".12 From Israel's perspective, Iran's nuclear program represents an "existential threat," and its military campaign was deemed necessary to prevent Iran from building an atomic weapon.1 Following the U.S. strikes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed profound gratitude, calling Trump a "friend of Israel like no one before him".1
C. International Reactions and Concerns Regarding Escalation
The international community expressed significant apprehension regarding the escalating conflict. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned of a "growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control," potentially leading to "catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world," and urged immediate de-escalation.1 Kaja Kallas, the European Union's foreign policy chief, echoed calls for restraint, reiterating that Iran must not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons, but emphasized the critical need for all parties to return to the negotiating table to prevent further escalation.1 Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen reacted by calling upon other Muslim nations to unite and form "one front against the Zionist-American arrogance".1
The deployment of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) was a highly strategic and symbolic act, directly addressing concerns about the effectiveness of strikes against deeply buried facilities. The MOP is described as the "most powerful non-nuclear weapon" specifically designed for "deeply-buried facilities and hardened bunkers," and its deployment marked its first use in combat.4 Crucially, only the U.S. military possesses both the MOP and the B-2 Spirit stealth bombers required to deliver them.6 The fact that Israel was reportedly "pressing the US to use the MOP" underscores the perceived necessity of this specific capability for addressing such challenging targets.6 The deployment of this unique capability signals an extraordinary level of U.S. commitment and a deliberate demonstration of overwhelming force. This was intended to deter Iran, reassure key allies (especially Israel), and project U.S. military dominance. The U.S.'s willingness to deploy such an advanced, never-before-used weapon deepened its direct involvement in the conflict beyond mere support, indicating a strategic objective far more complex than mere inventory replenishment.
The divergence between President Trump's definitive claim that the nuclear sites were "completely and fully obliterated" and the more cautious and evolving assessments from U.S. defense officials (who stated damage assessment was "ongoing") and the IAEA is notable.1 The IAEA, while noting internal contamination risks at Natanz and damage to
above-ground facilities, confirmed no external radiation release and indicated Fordo, the most critical deeply buried site, appeared externally undamaged.2 Furthermore, Iranian officials claimed to have moved nuclear material
before the strikes.5 This divergence suggests a deliberate strategic communication effort, possibly aimed at projecting decisive strength and success to a domestic audience, deterring further Iranian actions, or signaling resolve to allies. The actual long-term impact on Iran's nuclear program might be less definitive than initially portrayed, and Iran's potential pre-emptive movement of materials indicates a level of preparedness that complicates the effectiveness of such "knockout blows."
Table 1: Summary of U.S. Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Facilities (June 2025)
II. Understanding the International Stance on Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
A. Iran's Nuclear Program: Stated Peaceful Intentions vs. Proliferation Concerns
Iran consistently asserts that its nuclear program is solely for civilian and peaceful purposes, aimed at generating atomic energy.1 Despite these claims, Iran's nuclear program is among the most intensely scrutinized globally.15 International concerns persist that Iran may be covertly developing nuclear weapons, with Israel being the most vocal proponent of this claim, viewing Iran's nuclear ambitions as an "existential threat".1
The primary international concern regarding proliferation since the early 2000s has centered on Iran's construction of gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facilities.13 These centrifuges are capable of producing both low-enriched uranium (LEU), suitable for nuclear power reactors, and highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is a key fissile material used in nuclear weapons.13 Iran's consistent assertion that its nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes" is juxtaposed with these international suspicions, fueled by its enrichment to near weapons-grade levels, its past and current non-compliance with IAEA safeguards, and the strategic objectives attributed to its program. The inherent dual-use nature of uranium enrichment technology (for power or weapons) allows Iran to maintain this ambiguity. This "peaceful purposes" claim functions as a deliberate strategic narrative, allowing Tehran to maintain a degree of international legitimacy and avoid the most severe forms of international isolation, while simultaneously developing a robust "latent nuclear capability" or "breakout capability." This ambiguity enables Iran to pursue the
option of nuclear weapons as a potential deterrent or power projection tool without overtly crossing the nuclear threshold, complicating international non-proliferation efforts.
Analyses suggest various geopolitical motivations behind Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities, including: a perceived means to threaten or achieve the destruction of Israel, with the U.S. maintaining that a nuclear-capable Iran would likely attempt Israel's annihilation; a tool to safeguard the Iranian regime and nation from foreign aggression and external dominance; an instrument for Iranian aggression and regional hegemony, projecting power across the Middle East; the potential to embolden Iran to increase its support for terrorism and insurgency, while using nuclear leverage to deter retaliation; and a symbol of Iranian techno-nationalist pride, embodying scientific progress and national independence.15 Heightened fears of nuclear terrorism also exist due to the potential transfer of nuclear technology or weapons to radical states or terrorist organizations.15
B. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and Iran's Non-Compliance
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was finalized in Vienna on July 14, 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the U.K., the U.S., plus Germany) along with the European Union.16 The agreement's core objective was to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.16
Key provisions of the JCPOA were designed to significantly roll back Iran's nuclear activities. Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium and reduce its low-enriched uranium stockpile by 98%, from 10,000 kg to 300 kg.16 For 15 years, Iran committed to enriching uranium only up to 3.67%, a level sufficient for civilian nuclear power but not for weaponry.16 The number of active centrifuges was to be reduced by approximately two-thirds to 6,104, with only 5,060 permitted to enrich uranium, and enrichment activities restricted solely to the Natanz plant using older IR-1 centrifuges. Iran also agreed to warehouse its advanced centrifuges and not build new enrichment facilities for 15 years.16 The Arak heavy water reactor was to be modernized to minimize plutonium production, and spent fuel was to be shipped out of the country.16 The Fordow facility was to be converted into a nuclear physics and technology center, maintaining no more than 1,044 IR-1 centrifuges for stable radioisotope production, and was prohibited from holding any fissile material.16 The agreement aimed to maintain a one-year "breakout interval," meaning Iran would need at least a year to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.16
However, starting from May 8, 2019, Iran progressively "stopped implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA on a step-by-step basis until, on 23 February 2021, it stopped implementing them altogether, including the Additional Protocol".17 As a direct consequence, the IAEA lost its ability to monitor or verify Iranian production and stocks of heavy water, centrifuge components, or assess their consistency with JCPOA designs. Iran's decision in June 2022 to remove all JCPOA-related surveillance and monitoring equipment further exacerbated this, resulting in an irreplaceable "loss of continuity of knowledge" regarding centrifuges, heavy water, and uranium ore concentrate (UOC).17
Since July 2019, the IAEA has verified that some of Iran's nuclear activities have exceeded JCPOA-mandated limits. Iran's current number of installed centrifuges, the mass and U-235 concentration of its enriched uranium stockpile, and the number of enrichment locations now surpass the JCPOA's restrictions. Furthermore, Tehran is engaging in JCPOA-prohibited research and development, as well as centrifuge manufacturing and installation.13 Iran's progressive non-compliance with the JCPOA, particularly its cessation of monitoring and increased enrichment, effectively dismantled the diplomatic architecture that had managed its nuclear program for years. This created a critical vacuum of transparency and a heightened sense of urgency for the U.S. and Israel, pushing them towards military action as a perceived last resort. The current situation represents a dangerous regression to, or even an exacerbation of, the pre-JCPOA tensions and lack of verifiable controls, demonstrating the inherent fragility of international agreements when political will, trust, or perceived strategic interests on either side erode.
Table 2: Key Provisions of the JCPOA and Iran's Current Compliance Status (as of June 2025)
C. Assessments of Iran's "Breakout Time" and Weaponization Potential
"Breakout time" refers to the estimated period Iran would need to produce enough weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a nuclear weapon.13 U.S. intelligence assessments have consistently maintained that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and has not resumed it, nor has its Supreme Leader reauthorized such a program.8 According to U.S. officials and the IAEA, the pre-2003 program aimed to develop an implosion-style nuclear weapon for its Shahab-3 ballistic missile.13
Prior to the JCPOA, the U.S. government assessed that Iran had not mastered all the necessary technologies for building a nuclear weapon. However, current assessments indicate that Tehran "may now be conducting work on such technologies".13 IAEA reports suggest Iran does not yet possess a viable nuclear weapon design or a suitable explosive detonation system, and may require more experience in producing uranium metal.13 Despite these assessments, Iran has been enriching uranium to up to 60% purity, which is significantly close to the 90% typically considered weapons-grade.10
Estimates of Iran's breakout time vary widely, reflecting different interpretations of intelligence and technical capabilities. Mossad reportedly believes Iran could assemble a nuclear weapon within 15 days.20 More conservative U.S. assessments estimate "several months or up to a year".20 However, a State Department official in March 2022 suggested Iran could produce enough weapons-grade HEU for one nuclear weapon in "as little as one week".14 A May 11, 2025, Defense Intelligence Agency assessment indicated "probably less than one week".14 Furthermore, a November 2024 Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) report stated Iran possessed enough fissile material that, if further enriched, would be sufficient for "more than a dozen nuclear weapons".13 Following the June 2025 strikes, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated that Iran's enrichment program "has been significantly set back".13 Reports indicate that the above-ground section of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz, where Iran was producing 60% enriched uranium, was destroyed. The underground centrifuge facility at Natanz, enriching up to 5%, was likely destroyed due to power loss from an Israeli strike. The Fordo enrichment site, where Iran produces most of its near weapons-grade material, was specifically targeted by U.S. "bunker buster" bombs.10
D. Geopolitical Motivations Behind Iran's Pursuit of Nuclear Capabilities
International sanctions have severely impacted Iran's economy, restricting its oil exports and limiting access to global financial systems. Covert operations, such as the Stuxnet cyberattack in 2010, have also sought to disrupt the program.15 Scholars argue that a nuclear-armed Iran might feel emboldened to intensify its support for terrorism and insurgency, using its newfound nuclear leverage to deter retaliation.15
Iran has historically pursued a "hedging strategy," developing significant capacity and know-how to build nuclear weapons but stopping short of actual weaponization.21 This approach allows Iran to maintain a strategic option without incurring the full international condemnation and military risk associated with overt weaponization. Paradoxically, Israel's recent strikes, particularly with U.S. assistance, while aimed at setting back Iran's nuclear program, could potentially "accelerate Iran's race towards nuclear weapons".3 If Tehran perceives its survival as existentially threatened by such military actions, it might strengthen its resolve to pursue nuclear weapons for self-defense and deterrence. This creates a dangerous and potentially self-defeating feedback loop: perceived threats lead to proliferation efforts, which in turn provoke pre-emptive strikes, potentially pushing the proliferator closer to the very capability the strikes aimed to prevent. This highlights the complex and often counter-intuitive dynamics of nuclear deterrence and non-proliferation efforts, where military solutions can sometimes exacerbate the underlying problem rather than resolve it.
III. Global Nuclear Proliferation: A Comparative Perspective
A. Countries with Nuclear Weapons: NPT Status and Stockpiles
Currently, nine countries are known or widely believed to possess nuclear weapons.18 The five original nuclear weapons states (NWS), recognized under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), are the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. All five are signatories to the NPT, which obligates them to "pursue negotiations in good faith" toward nuclear disarmament, while committing non-nuclear weapons states not to acquire them.18
Four UN member states have never accepted the NPT, three of which possess or are thought to possess nuclear weapons: India, Israel, and Pakistan.23 South Sudan, established in 2011, also has not joined the treaty.23 North Korea initially joined the NPT in 1985 but announced its withdrawal in 2003, citing perceived U.S. aggression. It has since conducted a series of nuclear tests beginning in 2006, establishing itself as an acknowledged nuclear power.18 Israel, which has not signed the NPT, maintains a policy of "nuclear ambiguity," neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons, though it is widely believed to have acquired them in the 1950s.18
Estimated stockpiles of military nuclear warheads as of January (per Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) are as follows: Russia: 4,309; United States: 3,700; China: 600; France: 290; United Kingdom: 225; India: 180; Pakistan: 170; Israel: 90.18 North Korea's exact stockpile is not publicly listed, but its status as a nuclear power is confirmed through its tests.
B. Why Iran and Not Others? Comparing Approaches to North Korea and Afghanistan
The question of why Iran is subject to such intense scrutiny and military action, while other nations possess nuclear capabilities, requires a nuanced understanding of international legal frameworks, historical contexts, and geopolitical realities. The approaches to North Korea and Afghanistan highlight these distinctions.
1. North Korea: An Established Nuclear Power and Lessons from Past Diplomacy
North Korea is an established nuclear power, having conducted nuclear tests since 2006, and formally withdrew from the NPT in 2003.18 The 1994 Agreed Framework between the U.S. and North Korea aimed to freeze and replace North Korea's indigenous nuclear program (which could produce weapons-grade plutonium) with proliferation-resistant light water reactors, in exchange for fuel oil and steps toward normalization of relations.24 This agreement temporarily froze plutonium production and placed it under IAEA safeguards, with some analysts suggesting it prevented North Korea from having as many as 100 nuclear weapons by 2003.24
The Agreed Framework ultimately failed due to a combination of factors. North Korea was estimated to have already produced enough plutonium for at least one nuclear weapon before the agreement was signed.27 The U.S. faced challenges in delivering on its commitments, including economic sanctions relief and full diplomatic relations. North Korea was subsequently caught violating its safeguards obligations and illicitly separating plutonium.25
The international legal and political frameworks applied to Iran's nuclear program differ significantly from those applied to North Korea, primarily due to the nature of the agreements, the involvement of international bodies, and the geopolitical contexts.
Key Differences in Frameworks and Approaches (Iran vs. North Korea):
Nuclear Status: The most fundamental difference is that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons, whereas Iran has never possessed one and remains a member of the NPT (though non-compliant).28 The Iran deal (JCPOA) was explicitly designed to
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while the approach to North Korea must contend with an existing nuclear arsenal.28Fissile Material: Before the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea was estimated to have already produced sufficient fissile material for a weapon.27 In contrast, Iran has not provided evidence of acquiring enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, meaning it would face a much higher risk of detection and military action if it were to violate a comprehensive agreement to do so.27 This distinction allows for a more preventative approach with Iran.
Scope of Agreement: The proposed Iran deal explicitly covers all pathways to the bomb (both uranium and plutonium enrichment) with extensive verification measures.27 The Agreed Framework, however, primarily focused on North Korea's plutonium program, which inadvertently allowed North Korea to secretly develop a parallel uranium enrichment route.27 This broader scope in the Iran deal aims for a more comprehensive and robust non-proliferation outcome.
Verification Intensity: The verification regime envisioned for Iran under the JCPOA was designed to be "extensive" and "intense," including "cradle to grave" monitoring of uranium enrichment activities (mines, mills, centrifuge production, assembly, and enrichment sites).27 The Agreed Framework, conversely, contained no specific verification procedures beyond general cooperation. Furthermore, enhanced U.S. intelligence capabilities (including cyberintelligence, overhead surveillance, and human intelligence penetration) have significantly improved since 1994, augmenting deterrence against cheating by Iran.27 This enhanced monitoring capability provides greater confidence in detecting violations with Iran.
International Codification: The Iran deal was intended to be codified in a legally binding UN Security Council resolution, meaning any violation would be considered a threat to international peace and security, thereby increasing the risks Iran would face.27 The Agreed Framework was a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and North Korea, without the same level of UN Security Council backing.27 This difference significantly buttresses the legal and political authority of the United States and other Security Council members to take action in case of a violation by Iran.
Unified International Front: The P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) presented a unified front in their goal of preventing Iran's nuclear weapon acquisition, demonstrating this commitment through unprecedented economic sanctions.27 Negotiations with North Korea under the Agreed Framework were primarily U.S.-DPRK, with less collective international investment in its enforcement.27 This collective international investment in the Iran deal provides stronger backing and accountability.
Normalization of Relations: The comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran did not call for full normalization of relations with the United States, allowing for a narrow focus on nuclear issues and insulating the agreement from other contentious issues.27 The Agreed Framework, however, explicitly called for full normalization, which complicated its implementation due to other unresolved issues between the U.S. and North Korea.27
Key Similarities in Frameworks and Challenges (Iran vs. North Korea):
"Rewarding Bad Behavior": Both agreements can be perceived as rewarding "bad behavior" to a degree, as they offered benefits (e.g., sanctions relief, aid, light-water reactors) in return for compliance after the respective states had violated nonproliferation norms.27
Resistance to IAEA Transparency: Both Iran and North Korea have historically resisted providing the IAEA with full transparency and cooperation to answer questions about past nuclear activities.27
Influence of Isolated Ideological Decision-Maker: In both cases, the most important decision-maker is an internationally isolated, ideological figure who views the United States with suspicion and believes it seeks to overthrow his government.27
Continued Condemnable Actions: Despite agreements, both regimes have continued to engage in actions contrary to international norms (e.g., supporting terrorist organizations, developing missiles, human rights abuses).27
Congressional Obstruction: Implementation of both agreements has faced or will likely face challenges from the U.S. Congress, particularly regarding sanctions relief.27
Russia's Attitude: Russia's attitude toward U.S.-Iranian relations is somewhat similar to China's attitude toward U.S.-North Korean relations, fearing a broad rapprochement with the U.S. could undermine its regional interests.27
2. Afghanistan: Absence of Nuclear Program
Afghanistan, under the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," does not possess nuclear weapons, nor does it have any civilian nuclear facilities.29 The primary concern related to nuclear risks in the region involving Afghanistan stems from its neighbor, Pakistan, which
does possess a nuclear arsenal, fissile material stockpiles, nuclear power plants, and other nuclear facilities.29 The rapid U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 created a chaotic environment that raised fears among some U.S. Congressmen about the Taliban potentially acquiring nuclear weapons, though the answer to this concern lies with Pakistan's deep state and its ability or willingness to prevent nuclear terrorism or proliferation.29 The distinction here is fundamental: Afghanistan itself is not a nuclear proliferator, nor does it have the indigenous capacity to become one. Concerns are instead focused on the stability of a neighboring nuclear state and the potential for terrorist organizations to gain access to materials in a volatile region.
The differing approaches to Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan are thus rooted in their distinct nuclear statuses, the nature of their past and present proliferation activities, the international legal frameworks applicable to them, and the geopolitical leverage available to the international community. Iran's status as an NPT signatory (albeit non-compliant) that is perceived to be on the cusp of weaponization, coupled with its regional ambitions and perceived threat to Israel, drives the preventative military action. North Korea, as an existing nuclear power, presents a different challenge that requires a focus on denuclearization of an established arsenal. Afghanistan, lacking a nuclear program, is primarily a concern in the context of regional instability and the security of neighboring nuclear assets.
IV. US Constitutional War Powers and Presidential Authority
The user's concern about President Trump's actions bypassing Congress and going "against the constitution" touches upon a long-standing and complex debate within U.S. constitutional law: the division of war powers between the executive and legislative branches.
A. Congressional Power to Declare War vs. Presidential Authority to Use Force
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water".30 The Supreme Court has affirmed that only Congress holds the power to declare war.30 However, the implications of this exclusive assignment are not well-settled, particularly concerning its relationship with the President's war powers under Article II of the Constitution.30
The Framers of the Constitution, in drafting the "Declare War" clause, substituted "declare" for "make war" to ensure the President retained the power to "repel sudden attacks".30 Under Congress's interpretation, the President may introduce troops into hostile circumstances if Congress has (1) declared war, (2) specifically authorized the use of force, or (3) there is a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories.30 The United States has formally declared war only eleven times across five conflicts, with the last formal declaration occurring during World War II.30
Conversely, the executive branch claims a much broader authority, asserting that the Constitution empowers the President to initiate and engage in many types of military action without prior congressional authorization.30 The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has opined that the President, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive, has the constitutional authority to deploy the military to protect American persons and interests without seeking prior authorization from Congress.30
Since World War II, statutory authorizations, known as Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), have become the predominant method for Congress to permit military action.30 For instance, the 2001 AUMF (for the "war on terror") and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been relied upon by successive presidents to justify attacks in numerous countries without seeking new congressional approval.32 These authorizations have often been stretched to cover groups not directly connected to their original intent, such as ISIS.32
B. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 and Its Effectiveness
In response to decades of U.S. intervention, particularly in Vietnam and Cambodia, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto.32 This federal law was designed to reassert congressional authority and limit the President's power to commit the U.S. to armed conflict.32
Key provisions of the War Powers Resolution include:
Notification to Congress: In the absence of a declaration of war, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action.32
Deployment Limits: Military deployments are limited to 60 or 90 days, unless Congress passes authorizations to extend them.32
Consultation with Congress: Before U.S. troops are committed abroad, Congress must be consulted "in every possible instance".32
Despite its intent, modern presidents have routinely sidestepped the War Powers Resolution, often employing "creative legal arguments" to circumvent its requirements.32 The executive branch has steadily expanded its war-making powers, particularly after the September 11, 2001, attacks.32 Presidents, including Donald Trump, have vetoed legislation passed by Congress that sought to limit presidential war authority, and these vetoes have often not been overridden due to a lack of a two-thirds majority in both houses.32
In the context of the Iran strikes, President Trump's actions quickly sparked debate in Congress.33 While Republicans largely praised his "decisive action," many Democrats and some Republicans argued the strikes were unconstitutional and demanded prior congressional approval.33 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stated, "No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy".33 House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused Trump of misleading the country and failing to seek authorization, risking entanglement in a "potentially disastrous war".33 Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, introduced a bill requiring congressional authorization for military strikes against Iran, calling the bombings "horrible judgment".32 This ongoing tension illustrates that while the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, the practical application of war powers has seen a significant shift towards executive discretion, often leading to political and constitutional clashes.
V. The Military-Industrial Complex and Economic Drivers of Conflict
The user's assertion that the war is "about military profit and nothing else" and that the use of 14 MOP bombs was for "bomb inventory they wanted to replenish" warrants an examination of the military-industrial complex (MIC) and its influence.
A. Origins and Structure of the Military-Industrial Complex
The term "military-industrial complex" was famously coined by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address in 1961.34 Eisenhower cautioned the nation to be wary of the immense power and influence of this complex, which he defined as encompassing individuals from Congress, regions economically tied to military enterprises, the Department of Defense, and private military contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman.34 He expressed concern that the MIC could foster situations not in the nation's best interest, and that its unchecked influence might undermine American values.34
Most historians trace the MIC's significant growth to the mid-20th century, particularly after World War II, when the rise of a "permanent war economy" led to an unprecedented rate of military innovation and production.34 However, its fundamental elements can be traced back to the late 19th century, driven by the convergence of geopolitical tension, globalization, and industrialization.34
The U.S. defense market, a core component of the MIC, is characterized by a unique structure: a monopsony on the demand side (the Department of Defense) facing an oligopoly on the supply side (a few major contractors).34 This structure inherently leads to non-competitive conditions, with the majority of agreements being negotiated rather than competitively bid.34 The concentration of military contracts is high, with the top 100 contractors receiving approximately 70% of all procurement costs annually between 1965 and 1974.34
B. Economic Impacts and Influence on Policy
The MIC exerts a massive societal impact by influencing economic activity, technical progress, politics, and the likelihood of war.35
1. Economic Activity and Technical Progress
The MIC twists economic activity towards military spending, diverting resources that could otherwise be used for civilian needs.35 In 2023, federal defense spending in the U.S. accounted for 3.6% of GDP, exceeding total federal non-defense discretionary spending.35 This prioritization reflects the significant political power of the MIC. Military spending also has a substantial economic multiplier effect; for instance, in 2023, it could explain 10.8% of GDP when accounting for direct and induced income effects.35 While some argue that defense spending supports the economy and creates jobs ("Military Keynesianism"), critics contend that investment in other sectors like infrastructure, education, and healthcare would be more labor-intensive and economically sound.34
The MIC also twists the character of technical progress. It functions as a de facto institution of U.S. industrial policy, driving technological development. However, this involvement has tilted the path of technical advance towards militarized applications.35 Many dual-use technologies, such as satellite communications, microelectronics, and the internet, have their origins or significant development within the MIC.35 This identification of the military with technical advancement contributes to a pro-military mentality, further entrenching the MIC's influence.35
2. Influence on Politics and Likelihood of War
The MIC is socially corrosive through its capture of politics and government, leading agencies and politicians to serve private sector interests rather than the public good.35 This capture occurs through various mechanisms:
Revolving Door: Former defense industry executives move into government roles, and ex-bureaucrats and politicians transition to work for the defense industry, creating a shared interest.35
Lobbying and Campaign Finance: Defense industry assistance for political campaigns and the recruitment of ex-politicians as lobbyists provide significant influence.35
Think Tanks: Defense industry-funded think tanks develop favorable political narratives that are amplified through media, legitimizing the MIC's ideas.35
Employment Dependencies: Sourcing parts for military projects from numerous states creates employment dependencies, generating political support that hinders cuts to costly programs.35 This is a form of "political engineering" where contracts are awarded across many Congressional districts to "pay off" elected representatives.34
The MIC also manipulates public understanding of geopolitics, often cultivating aggressive nationalism or exaggerating foreign threats to increase demand for "war services".35 This dynamic promotes militarism and increases the likelihood of war, as conflict or the threat of conflict directly benefits the MIC's economic interests.35 The MIC also seeks to lower the perceived and actual costs of war, for example, by ensuring wars are fought off-territory (like the U.S. with its geographical advantage) or by shifting towards less costly proxy wars.35 Practices like the "Dover ban" (banning media coverage of returning dead U.S. soldiers) have been used to obscure the human cost of war and maintain public support.35 The shift to an all-volunteer military in 1973, while economically efficient, also undermines the political process that checks the MIC's push for war, as society bears less direct cost in terms of lives.35
In the context of the recent Iran strikes, while the user's suggestion of "bomb inventory replenishment" for the MOP bombs is not supported by the strategic and unprecedented nature of their deployment, the broader concern about military profit and influence is a recognized academic topic. The use of the GBU-57 MOP, a highly specialized and expensive weapon, for its first combat deployment against deeply buried targets, reflects a strategic decision to utilize a unique capability to achieve specific military objectives, rather than a mere logistical exercise.4 However, the underlying economic incentives and political influence of the MIC remain a critical lens through which to analyze military interventions and defense spending.
VI. The Role of Israel in the Conflict's Escalation
The user's perception that "Israel escalated this and escalated this while being warned that it may start world war three and now has convinced Trump to attack and join the war" reflects a significant aspect of the recent events.
A. Israel's Strategic Objectives and Actions
Israel views Iran's nuclear program as an "existential threat".1 This perception is rooted in Iran's stated aim to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" and its alleged strategic objective of achieving Israel's destruction.12 U.S. intelligence assessments have also maintained that a nuclear-capable Iran would likely attempt the annihilation of Israel.15
On June 13, Israel launched an unprecedented barrage of attacks against Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure, killing several top military officials and nuclear scientists.1 These strikes were described as a "wide decapitation move," targeting multiple nuclear sites and aiming not only to slow immediate progress but also to impose a longer-term setback by removing expertise and key assets.3 Israel announced this as a multi-stage operation, likely to include additional attacks.3
B. Influence on US Policy and Intervention
The U.S. decision to directly involve itself in the conflict came after more than a week of these Israeli strikes, which had already significantly degraded Iran's air defenses and offensive missile capabilities and damaged its nuclear enrichment facilities.5 U.S. and Israeli officials conveyed that the 30,000-pound (13,500-kilogram) bunker-buster bomb (MOP) offered the best chance of destroying deeply buried sites like Fordo, and that the U.S. military uniquely possessed both the munitions and the aircraft (B-2 stealth bombers) to deliver them.5 Speculation was rife that Israel was pressing the U.S. to use the MOP, which was subsequently confirmed by the American strikes.6
President Trump's decision for direct U.S. military intervention was made "at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers".8 The calculation was that Israel's operation had "softened the ground" and presented a unique opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, potentially permanently.8 Following the U.S. strikes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed profound gratitude, calling Trump a "friend of Israel like no one before him".1
While U.S. officials publicly distanced themselves from potential Israeli strikes, Netanyahu's aides reportedly interpreted recent conversations with the United States as a "green light" for the strikes and an acknowledgment of deteriorating negotiations.3 This indicates a complex dynamic where U.S. and Israeli strategic interests converged, with Israel taking initial military action that then created the perceived conditions and impetus for direct U.S. intervention. The strong alignment between the Trump administration and Israel, particularly on the perceived threat from Iran, played a crucial role in the U.S. decision to join the military campaign.
VII. Global Nuclear Disarmament Efforts and Challenges
The user's statement that "Total global disarmament is the only way to true global peace and sustainability" reflects a widely held aspiration and highlights the ongoing efforts and significant challenges in achieving a nuclear-weapons-free world.
A. Historical Context and Key Treaties
Since the birth of the United Nations, multilateral disarmament and arms limitation have been central to maintaining international peace and security.36 The UN has prioritized reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons due to their immense destructive potential.36
Key treaties and initiatives aimed at limiting the spread and reducing nuclear arsenals include:
Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) (1963): Prohibited all nuclear weapons testing except underground.37
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (1968): Aims to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, with three pillars: nonproliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear technology.36 Most UN member states are signatories.18
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (SALT I & II) (1972, 1979): Bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Soviet Union to limit strategic offensive arms.37
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987): Banned land-based ballistic and cruise missiles of certain ranges (U.S. withdrew in 2019).37
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I & II) (1991, 1993): Aimed to reduce long-range nuclear forces.37
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (1996): Bans all nuclear explosions in all environments, though not yet in force.36
New START Treaty (2010): Replaced earlier treaties, reducing deployed nuclear warheads (Russia suspended participation in 2023).37
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) (2017): Prohibits the possession, manufacture, development, and testing of nuclear weapons by its parties.22
These efforts were often spurred by the devastating effects of nuclear weapons, as demonstrated by Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and the Cold War's threat of mutually assured destruction.22 President Dwight D. Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program in 1953, which led to the creation of the IAEA, aimed to provide non-military nuclear technology to countries renouncing nuclear weapons.22
B. Challenges and Perceived Impact on International Peace and Security
Despite extensive global efforts, achieving nuclear disarmament remains a profoundly difficult challenge. Approximately 12,500 nuclear weapons reportedly remain in the world today, and over 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted to date.36
Key challenges include:
Deterrence vs. Disarmament: Proponents argue disarmament lessens the probability of nuclear war (including from accidents or false alarms), while critics contend it undermines deterrence and could lead to more conventional wars.37
Non-Compliance and Proliferation: While most states adhere to the NPT, some have refused to sign (India, Pakistan, Israel) or have pursued nuclear weapons programs outside the treaty (North Korea), posing significant threats to nonproliferation and world peace.18 Iran is currently accused of seeking nuclear weapons while being a non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT.37
Risk of Nuclear Terrorism: Former U.S. officials have expressed concern about terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons, as they cannot be deterred by traditional means.37
Accidental Nuclear War: Historical incidents demonstrate that nuclear war could occur by accident, highlighting the inherent limits of organizational safety.22
Political Will: The suspension of treaties like New START by Russia indicates ongoing divisions and a lack of universal commitment to arms control frameworks.37
Organizations like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Peace Action, Greenpeace, ICAN, and Global Zero actively advocate for nuclear disarmament.37 High-level advocacy from U.S. elder statesmen like Sam Nunn, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz has also called for a world free of nuclear weapons.37 The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) promotes nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and the 2017 UN conference adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.36
While the aspiration for total global disarmament is clear, the path is fraught with complex geopolitical realities, deep-seated security concerns among states, and the inherent difficulty of verifying and enforcing such agreements universally. The current conflict with Iran underscores the ongoing tension between non-proliferation objectives and the challenges of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.
VIII. Conclusions
The recent U.S. military action against Iran, undertaken with Israeli collaboration, is a multifaceted event driven by complex geopolitical dynamics, national security concerns, and domestic political considerations. The analysis presented here offers several key conclusions regarding the user's expressed bewilderment and concerns.
First, the justification for the strikes, framed around preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, is rooted in Iran's significant non-compliance with the JCPOA and its increased uranium enrichment activities. While U.S. intelligence assessments indicate Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, the rapid decrease in its "breakout time" to produce fissile material created a perceived urgency for intervention. The discrepancy between political rhetoric emphasizing an "imminent threat" and more nuanced intelligence assessments suggests a strategic amplification of the threat to align with a policy of pre-emptive military action.
Second, the deployment of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) was a highly strategic and symbolic act, demonstrating a unique U.S. capability to target deeply buried facilities. This refutes the notion that its use was merely for "inventory replenishment," instead highlighting a deliberate projection of overwhelming force intended to deter Iran and reassure allies. The immediate impact on Iran's nuclear program, while claimed as "obliteration" by President Trump, is more cautiously assessed by defense officials and the IAEA, indicating a potential divergence between public pronouncements and the actual, ongoing assessment of damage.
Third, the differing international approaches to nuclear proliferation, as seen in the comparisons between Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan, are not arbitrary. North Korea, an established nuclear power that withdrew from the NPT, presents a challenge of denuclearizing an existing arsenal. Iran, while non-compliant with the NPT, is not believed to possess a weapon, making the objective to prevent acquisition. Afghanistan, lacking any nuclear program, is a concern primarily due to regional instability and the security of neighboring nuclear assets. These distinctions dictate tailored diplomatic and military frameworks, reflecting the varying stages of proliferation and the geopolitical contexts.
Fourth, the constitutional debate surrounding presidential war powers is a persistent feature of U.S. foreign policy. While Congress holds the power to declare war, presidents have historically exercised broad authority to use military force, often relying on existing AUMFs or claims of responding to threats. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, designed to reassert congressional authority, has often been sidestepped by successive administrations, leading to ongoing contention between the executive and legislative branches regarding military engagements.
Finally, the influence of the military-industrial complex (MIC) on economic activity, technical progress, and the likelihood of war is a recognized phenomenon. The MIC's economic interests can intertwine with national security decisions, influencing geopolitical narratives and advocating for increased military spending. While the specific use of MOP bombs was strategically driven, the broader concern about profit motives within the defense industry remains a valid area of scrutiny in understanding the drivers of conflict.
In conclusion, the situation surrounding Iran's nuclear program and the recent U.S. military action is deeply complex, involving a confluence of national security imperatives, international non-proliferation efforts, constitutional interpretations, and economic considerations. The perceived "deeper agenda" is not a singular conspiracy but rather the intricate interplay of these various factors, each contributing to the current state of global affairs and the profound concerns for international peace and safety. The desire for "total global disarmament" is a shared aspiration, yet its achievement remains a formidable challenge amidst the realities of state sovereignty, regional rivalries, and the enduring complexities of nuclear deterrence.
Works cited
What to know about the conflict between Israel and Iran, and the US intervention, accessed June 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/israel-attack-iran-strike-nuclear-us-news-5adea3ffa51264e0c7c803d8acfde338
How far will US strikes set back Iran's nuclear programme? | Conflict News | Al Jazeera, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/22/how-far-will-us-strikes-set-back-irans-nuclear-programme
What Do the Israeli Strikes Mean for Iran's Nuclear Program? - CSIS, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-do-israeli-strikes-mean-irans-nuclear-program
The Latest: US strikes 3 Iranian sites, joining Israeli air campaign, accessed June 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-iran-war-latest-06-21-2025-894a8cfb8bf2c1b717e0a955f22b91e0
US inserts itself into Israel's war against Iran with strikes on 3 Iranian nuclear sites, accessed June 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-war-nuclear-trump-bomber-news-06-22-2025-c2baca52babe915e033ae175ce8b2687
'Bunker-buster' MOP and B-2: Why US bomb, stealth bomber were Israel's best chance at destroying Iran's Fordo nuclear facility | Explained News - The Indian Express, accessed June 22, 2025, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/us-iran-bunker-buster-bomb-nuclear-plants-10080907/
US Bunker Buster & Stealth Bomber That 'Obliterated' Iran's Nuclear Sites: All You Need to Know - Outlook Business, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.outlookbusiness.com/news/us-bunker-buster-stealth-bomber-that-obliterated-irans-nuclear-sites-all-you-need-to-know
Trump's big gamble in Iran is a risky moment after his pledges to keep US out of 'stupid wars', accessed June 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-nuclear-fordo-ef530114e5297884b1c3b76a04a3b1de
UN nuclear agency warns of possible contamination inside Iran's Natanz site after Israeli strikes, accessed June 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-israel-radiation-natanz-a58c0e06ad30b3a8bf21159a4f54c35a
Fact Focus: US and Israeli strikes on Iran nuclear sites pose limited radiation risks, accessed June 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-radiation-risks-fordo-natanz-32da46ad6a3e0050986553bfde0a8fed
Update on Developments in Iran | IAEA, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-on-developments-in-iran
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: President Trump's Display of Peace Through Strength, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/what-they-are-saying-president-trumps-display-of-peace-through-strength/
Iran and Nuclear Weapons Production | Congress.gov | Library of ..., accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12106
Iran and Nuclear Weapons Production - Congress.gov, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12106/IF12106.18.pdf
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, accessed June 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - Wikipedia, accessed June 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015), accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf
These countries have nuclear weapons or are believed to have them, accessed June 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/which-countries-have-nuclear-weapons-dd34ff7bfc4cd4d9f13940102b1d5f1c
Analysis of IAEA Iran Verification and Monitoring Report — May 2025, accessed June 22, 2025, https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analysis_of_May_2025_IAEA_Iran_Verification_Report_FINAL.pdf
Mossad says Iran 15 days from bomb, US agencies still say up to a year - report, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossad-says-iran-15-days-from-bomb-us-agencies-still-say-up-to-a-year-report/
Iran–Israel conflict: Iran has run out of good options | Chatham House, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/06/iran-israel-conflict-iran-has-run-out-good-options
Nuclear Proliferation: Overview | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/nuclear-proliferation-overview
en.wikipedia.org, accessed June 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#:~:text=Four%20UN%20member%20states%20have,in%202011%2C%20has%20not%20joined.
The U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework at a Glance | Arms Control Association, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/us-north-korean-agreed-framework-glance
Agreed Framework - Wikipedia, accessed June 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework
Nuclear proliferation | Military, Arms Control & International Security | Britannica, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/nuclear-proliferation
Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal | Carnegie ..., accessed June 22, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/2015/04/28/why-iran-nuclear-deal-is-not-north-korea-deal-pub-59923
REMARKS: Dealing with North Korea: Lessons from the Iran ..., accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-07/features/remarks-dealing-north-korea-lessons-iran-nuclear-negotiations
Taliban in Afghanistan and Growing Nuclear Risks in Pakistan – What's the Connection?, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.apln.network/news/member_activities/taliban-in-afghanistan-and-growing-nuclear-risks-in-pakistan-whats-the-connection
ArtI.S8.C11.2.1 Overview of Declare War Clause - Constitution Annotated - Congress.gov, accessed June 22, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-2-1/ALDE_00000110/
Overview of Declare War Clause | U.S. Constitution Annotated - Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/overview-of-declare-war-clause
What is the War Powers Act – can it stop Trump from declaring war ..., accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/19/what-is-the-war-powers-act-and-can-it-stop-trump-from-attacking-iran
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes | AP ..., accessed June 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/iran-strikes-congress-republicans-trump-239d3ea01ea0338c2daf566b12ba2ee2
Analysis of The Military Industrial Complex: The Benefit of a Few, accessed June 22, 2025, https://soar.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12648/13665/4527_sivon.fowles.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
WORKING PAPER 2409 - The military-industrial complex as a ..., accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/working-papers/PKWP2409.pdf
Disarmament | United Nations, accessed June 22, 2025, https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/disarmament
Nuclear disarmament - Wikipedia, accessed June 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament
Comments
Post a Comment