What the 2024 Election Taught Us About the Future of Foreign Election Interference

By: Jacob Rabin

The 2016 and 2020 elections proved that foreign actors had both the capacity and the desire to meddle in American elections. The 2024 election season showed us that not only has foreign interest in US elections remained high, but that these actors have devised new methods to interfere. Americans must be cognizant of these efforts, as it is likely they will continue to ramp up and evolve.

Following the 2016 election, a 448 page investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller determined that “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” Interference included cyber hacks of the Democratic National Committee, a systematic social media campaign, and even links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In 2020, the National Intelligence Council determined that in addition to attempted election interference inside the United States, President Putin authorized “operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US.” Meanwhile, it was determined that Iran “carried out a multi-pronged covert influence campaign intended to undercut former President Trump’s reelection prospects” as well as “undermine public confidence in the electoral process and US institutions, and sow division and exacerbate societal tensions in the US”

In 2024, however, we saw a revamped playbook, including much of the old and some new. Like before, the interference started months in advance of November 5th.

In September, the Department of Justice unveiled an indictment revealing that Russia funded right-wing “influencers” to spread Russian propaganda. The indictment says that the influencers were unknowingly duped, but their followings totaled millions.

Microsoft released a report in August detailing their analysis of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian efforts to target our elections, including fake websites about polarizing issues, impersonation of activist groups, and fake accounts and videos, all designed to sow doubt and divide the United States.

It could take just moments of scrolling on social media to see the effects of Artificial Intelligence and “bots” online. This X thread by an open source intelligence researcher named Elise Thomas reveals a plethora of bots, all posting in support of Donald Trump. A Clemson University research report determined that there was “An army of political propaganda accounts powered by artificial intelligence” posing “as real people on X to argue in favor of Republican candidates and causes.”

On an otherwise smooth Election Day, bomb threats that U.S. officials linked to Russia disrupted voting in multiple swing states. The Arizona Attorney General stated that two thirds of Arizona’s counties received threats. The Georgia Secretary of State reported that the state received over 60 threats, many to primarily Democratic voting counties. The FBI published a statement on Election Day stating that they were aware of the threats and that election integrity is “among the FBI’s highest priorities.”

Ultimately, this interference is not only aimed at disrupting and influencing American elections. It also seeks to undermine the confidence of the American public in our complex election system. So far, it has done just that. In conjunction with Donald Trump’s baseless lies, this misinformation has led only 65% of voters to believe the 2020 election was free and fair. Just 30% of Republicans said the same. These same numbers were 72% and 87% in 2004.

Ultimately all of these examples over the last 8 or more years tell the story of a monumental issue: American elections are at risk. 

We can only expect interference to continue and worsen. At the end of the day, intelligence agencies and social media networks can only do so much to limit what gets through. 

As American citizens, we must be diligent. We must spend our time learning, reading, and understanding what is going on and what is at stake. We cannot blindly believe anything on the internet–we must return to an age of critical thinking to protect ourselves and our future. Otherwise, there is no telling where things will spiral in the future.

Nuclear Deterrence in a New Age: A Story of South Korea

By: David Ball

U.S. foreign policy stands at a precipice in shaping its nuclear doctrine for the 21st century. Instability has driven some countries to consider the atomic bomb, while others race to expand their nuclear arsenals. By the end of the decade, China is estimated to have over 1,000 operational nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, other states are scrambling to safeguard themselves against nuclear threats and global instability, as once-strong alliances and long standing commitments are showing signs of faltering.

In 2026, the last nuclear doctrine limiting atomic weapon production between the US and Russia will expire, and it is unlikely to be reinstated. Following the fear of a Ukrainian counterattack in October 2022, the White House was briefed that there were conversations about Russia deploying nuclear weapons in Ukraine. These instances signify a change in nuclear deterrence. 

It is increasingly clear that the U.S. is confronting a multipolar world in terms of nuclear strategy. As NATO faces unprecedented tests and global instability worsens, a new arms race is emerging. To address its changing nuclear position, the U.S. must focus on renewed assurances of diplomacy with its allies. 

South Korea, one of the United States' key allies, stands at the forefront of this nuclear change. In recent months, its primary geopolitical adversary, North Korea, has recently begun rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities and has been escalating the rhetoric around using nuclear options. The nuclear question has been a topic of intense debate in South Korea since the 1970s, when the US first announced that they would be moving troops away from the peninsula, but this moment comes at a more tumultuous time. 

Not only does North Korea have operational nuclear weapons, but heightened tensions between North and South Korea, uncertainty surrounding the strength of the U.S.-ROK alliance, and North Korea’s closer ties with Russia have created a volatile geopolitical landscape. Notably, 70% of South Koreans believe that its government should develop its own nuclear weapon capability. It is clear that these developments illuminate the need for increased diplomacy to protect our allies and uphold global nuclear nonproliferation efforts. 

This increasing weariness of the ROK’s favorability to develop a nuclear weapon has not gone unnoticed. In July of this year, the Biden administration signed a bilateral agreement with the ROK on a joint nuclear deterrence guideline. While the specifics of this agreement remain classified, it was indicated that it would involve the commitment of U.S. nuclear weapons on assignment in South Korea, which allows for the U.S. to respond to a threat quickly, but without having to change its nuclear stance. While this represents a step toward an increased engagement in diplomacy, gaps remain. Defense officials, academics and other influential policymakers within South Korea are both doubtful that the guideline will survive into the coming years, and are stressing the importance of building a more concrete relationship from this guideline.

By implementing and improving on the guidelines signed in its nuclear doctrine, South Korea can be a critical example of how to strengthen the U.S. nuclear umbrella without resorting to nuclear weapons testing. A detailed implementation roadmap that includes regular military exercises and bolstered diplomatic and military ties between South Korea and the United States could help promote deterrence and peace through strength, and reassure U.S. allies internationally of its nuclear umbrella.

Military nuclear exercises have already been held in South Korea, meaning that regular exercises can be possible, as the infrastructure and diplomatic cooperation already exist. Not only would this deter the DPRK, it would also help illustrate the commitment the U.S. has to its other allies that are threatened by the nuclear question, boosting nuclear proliferation and stability for all.

With Recent Developments to the Nuclear Playing Field, the U.S.'s $1.7 Trillion Nuclear Rebuild Should Concern Us All

By: Jacob Rabin

In February 2023, Russia announced that it would suspend its participation in the New START treaty, the last remaining check on American and Russian nuclear stockpiles. At this point, there have been no negotiations with Russia on a new nuclear arms treaty.

China and the United States lack such a treaty as well, and China halted recent informal negotiations due to the United States continuing to sell arms to Taiwan.

These three countries represent over 92% of the world’s nuclear weapons. Although China’s stockpile lags far behind the United States and Russia, the Defense Intelligence Agency recently published a report stating that China has surpassed earlier growth projections, and by 2030 it is estimated China will have over 1,000 nuclear warheads.

After a brief respite following the Cold War, the threat of nuclear war has skyrocketed. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock still remains at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been.

The United States government is being forced to respond to these recent developments. The United States is now in the process of a $1.7 trillion nuclear overhaul that is expected to be completed in three decades. The developments include building new nuclear facilities, modernizing aged warheads, developing  bombers, and submarines. Jill Hruby, the Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the agency that oversees the country’s nuclear weapons, recently called the plan a “renaissance.”

Not only does the plan have massive implications for the future of nuclear war, but even on the home front, these developments will have significant impacts on the communities in which they occur. Although the United States no longer routinely tests nuclear warheads, the effects of even building these weapons have extensive effects. 

In 1989, the last time that the US produced plutonium “pits,” the facility in Colorado where production occurred was actually shut down by the Environmental Protection Agency for environmental violations. The effects persist to this day, with plutonium found in the air near the plant just this past summer.

Other communities will  either be temporarily or permanently changed as thousands of employees descend on rural towns.

This is worrying. As tensions continue to escalate between Russia and Ukraine,, a war in the Middle East becoming increasingly likely, and nonstop posturing in the South China Sea over Taiwan, it’s not like there aren’t ongoing conflicts involving nuclear powers. One mistake or overreaction could genuinely change the future trajectory of the planet.

The simple truth is that we need to be alarmed. This is a multifaceted issue whose neglect will have impacts on people both now and later. We need to bring more attention to his issue. We need to work together  to build a nuclear-free future where countries, including the United States, aren’t devoting trillions of dollars to technology that could legitimately destroy the world. 

Continued French Ignorance of Indigenous Populations

By: Luke Crafton

In May 2024, riots roared across the French Overseas Territory of New Caledonia due to the French government’s implementation of a new voting amendment. The legislation, passed by politicians across the ocean in Paris, allowed for residents who have been on the island for at least 10 years to vote in elections and participate civically. 

However, the Indigenous Kanaks, who make up 41% of the country’s population, have lived through many migration efforts by the French government since the 1960s. These attempts have encouraged French residents to migrate to the territory, actively displacing and lessening the influence that the Kanak have over their native land. 

For decades, tensions have continued rising between the island's pro-independence and loyalist parties. The Kanak have continuously suffered from the neglect of the French government and face numerous socioeconomic challenges, such as unemployment, reliance on subsistence farming, and land dispossession. 

This amendment is seen as just an additional move to disregard and overlook the struggles and needs of the island’s native population. 

Between the 1960s and 1980s, the movement for independence within New Caledonia swept across the country’s political scene, and in 1988, a referendum for independence was accepted: the Nouméa Accord. 

This frustration has now taken a new front. 

Native Kanak peoples seeking the autonomy that was gradually promised in the 1989 Nouméa accord feel that any progress has effectively been walked back through this motion, a step that many see as further reducing the influence they have in their homeland by those who are supposed to represent their needs in their politics.  

Even UN experts have been alarmed by the situation, stating: “The French government has failed to respect the basic rights to participation, consultation and free, prior, informed consent of the Kanak Indigenous Peoples and its institutions, including the Customary Senate.”

Beginning in February 2024, Kanak people have taken to the streets in response to protest this measure. Still, due to a lack of dialogue, violence has started to emerge out of these demonstrations. In response, the military has utilized what many have referred to as excessive force, leading to today with the deaths of 14 Kanaks, over 2000 arrests, and nearly 1 billion euros of damage. A large factory was burnt down in Nouméa, alongside the destruction of other property like businesses and cars. 

On the 16th of May, the French government even banned TikTok on the island, aiming further to reduce the spreading of communication and anti-government sentiment. The app’s restrictions were lifted on the 29th as violence began to lighten up due to a French military operation that targeted those organizing. 

Yet, attacks persist across the country as tensions run high between the natives of the New Caledonian islands and the police and military forces, who just months ago employed any means necessary to suppress their voices and resentment over the poor treatment of their communities within the island’s political sphere. A strong police presence remains in many neighborhoods and urban areas across the country, signaling to the Kanak that those who claim to be interested in their liberation still don’t trust or understand them. 

New Caledonia’s status as an overseas territory, especially in the 21st century, is incredibly unique and repeatedly displays the inadequacy of colonial policies that persist in the modern era. 

Roughly 71 overseas territories exist globally, and while not all have created difficult situations for Indigenous populations’ homelands, New Caledonia exemplifies how governments that are so detached can be wholly inadequate for meeting the needs of the people that they have jurisdiction over. 

As this situation unfolds, the international community will continue to watch how poorly this form of governance can manifest itself upon those it is designed to protect. 

The U.S.-Mexico Border isn't Just a Political Issue, it's a Humanitarian Crisis

By: Priya Buddhavarapu

The US-Mexico migrant crisis isn’t just a political issue, but also a major humanitarian crisis. 

As Americans, we tend to boil down the complexity of the border crisis to three major dimensions: border security, illegal immigration, and drugs. However, there is a fourth dimension, a humanitarian dimension, that goes relatively unnoticed by the mass media and governments alike. Migrants are a highly vulnerable demographic, often exposed to extreme cases of danger, exploitation, and abuse. 

There are two aspects of the trans-American odyssey that especially contribute to the significant humanitarian risk that come with illegal immigration. The first is the dangers of the chosen form of passage, and the second is the exploitation of migrants by drug traffickers and powerful cartels.

Each mode of transportation along the migrants’ journey to the United States is accompanied by its unique risks and tribulations, whether it be by foot, boat, bus, or train. For example, a migrant traveling by foot from South America must survive the Darién Gap, a roadless crossing that is “more than sixty miles of dense rain forest, steep mountains, and vast swamps” situated on the border of Panama and Colombia. The Darién Gap is the only overland path connecting Central and South America, making it a key transit point that authorities have led crackdowns on. Through this route, migrants must often pay for a guide, called a “coyote,” to lead them through the jungle, where they are often faced with extreme hunger and thirst, intense anxiety, hopelessness, relentless rainfall, muddy terrain, and drastic temperatures. At the same time, they must evade–and often fall victim to– smugglers, drug cartels, and bands of criminals who often extort and assault migrants. In the first six months of 2023 alone, there were 60 reported deaths, leaving cause to believe that the actual figure was much larger. Not only do these migrants face the physical dangers of their environment, they are also victims of rape, robbery, and human trafficking. 

Assume the migrant has successfully crossed the Darién Gap, one of the most dangerous natural traps of their journey up north, as well as several other Central American countries. Now, they face the last, yet arguably the most treacherous leg: traversing Mexico. They opt for the infamous cargo train lines that run from the Guatemalan border to the north of the country. Colloquially called La Bestia – “The Beast.” —  migrants ride atop these rapidly moving freight trains, seeing that there are no passenger rail cars. Any space is valuable real estate; if they fall or are pushed off, they are subject to injury, amputation, or death. Furthermore, many of these freight lines are controlled by gangs and organized crime groups. Defenseless migrants are often subject to extortion, violence, rape, kidnapping, and robbery. According to one estimate, “eighty percent of passengers are subjected to violence while hundreds have died.” 

The humanitarian perils of their journey does not stop here. Throughout every step, organized crime groups exploit the fragile states of migrants, using blackmail, extortion, and violence to trap them in dangerous, self-serving situations. Many, especially women and children, fall victim to human trafficking and sexual violence, leading to grave circumstances such as unwanted pregnancies, HIVs, sexually transmitted diseases, and mental health issues. And, of course, no matter where migrants are, there is the omnipresent risk of being turned in or discovered by immigration officials threatening deportation or worse. 

The statuses of these migrants must not be diminished to a figure on an immigration report. In fact, this issue should not solely be looked at as a border issue, but as a real, imminent humanitarian crisis that governments across North America are insufficiently acting to prevent. In addressing a solution regarding the border, these governments must not only focus on security, but also on the lives and safety of migrants, who risk everything to seek a better life. 

AI Threatens to Exacerbate Global Inequality

By: Saira Uttamchandani

The development of artificial intelligence has led to some fascinating, increasingly popular inventions, such as the large language model ChatGPT. While artificial intelligence (AI) can do many interesting things, such as write music or create art, it also has had a significant positive  impact on various fields, such as finance, transportation, and medicine. As a result, investors are betting that the implementation of AI could raise global GDP by 7.5% by the year 2034. However, this incredible potential for growth could also exacerbate global inequality, as AI’s benefits are experienced unequally across countries and regions. Many developing countries lack the resources needed to take advantage of AI’s benefits and may also be the first to experience its harms.

Reaping the benefits of AI requires countries to have the necessary hard and soft infrastructure to support its use. This requires extensive digital connectivity, a technically savvy population, appropriate laws and regulations, and innovation. Higher-income countries are better prepared to take advantage of AI's benefits in all these areas due to the current wealth disparity between nations. Higher-income nations are thus better poised to benefit from artificial intelligence financially and economically. As these countries continue to benefit from artificial intelligence, it threatens to increase global inequality, as AI has the ability to increase productivity and generate greater wealth. 

Artificial intelligence also requires a lot of energy for the algorithm running, data center operation, and other similar tasks. This poses an issue, as lower-income countries often lack access to stable and reliable energy sources. This means they are less likely to benefit from the use of AI compared to higher-income nations, further increasing the chasmic divide. 

Artificial intelligence has been shown to improve economic productivity and economic status. If lower-income countries do not have access to these benefits, they will continue to fall behind as higher-income countries grow richer. Similarly, AI requires extensive computing power to run effectively, which many lower-income countries do not have. This is yet another difficulty lower-income countries face when trying to harness the power of artificial intelligence. 

It would be bad enough if developing countries were only less able to take advantage of AI's benefits, but this harm is exacerbated by the fact that AI also threatens to weaken the economies of developing countries through labor market disruption and a lack of technological skills in the countries’ workforce.

Labor market disruption via artificial intelligence has already begun. For example, automated assembly lines are replacing human workers, especially among “routine and repetitive” jobs, which automation can easily replace. Many corporations, such as Nike and Apple, outsource labor to developing countries, and a significant part of these countries’ GDP can be attributed to these manufacturing jobs. As they invest in their factories to improve productivity, the workers who are replaced by artificial intelligence have less disposable income and dollars to reinvest into the economy of these developing countries, thus stunting growth.

Incorporating artificial intelligence also increases demand for workers with skills to work alongside these new systems. 

AI is different from previous significant technological developments. For example, compared to the Industrial Revolution, AI is more likely to impact both blue-collar and white-collar jobs, and there is much more potential for high-skilled workers to reap the benefits. Complementary jobs in cybersecurity and IT, which already pay quite well compared to other fields, will surge as AI creates new opportunities As a result, high earning workers may experience a disproportionate increase in their income. These high-wage earners are disproportionately located in developed countries and, therefore, workers in lower-income countries may not experience the benefits as robustly.

In an increasingly automated world where artificial intelligence is continuously growing at remarkable speeds, we must recognize the unequal benefit  it provides and the harm it causes.

The U.S. Needs to Stand With Canada

By: Saira Uttamchandani

Last summer, the news of Canadian Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s murder in Surrey, British Columbia, shocked the world. He was shot in his truck outside of the the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara (a Sikh temple), sparking an uproar in Canada’s Sikh community. Nijjar was known for being a prominent activist for the creation of Khalistan, an independent Sikh state. This led the Indian media and government to label him a terrorist, while he gained a large following in the Sikh community.

This situation escalated when Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, asserted in September of 2023 that there were “credible allegations” that the Indian government was connected to Nijjar’s murder. 

These accusations have sparked a wave of disputes between Canada and India, culminating in the expulsion of six Indian diplomats from Canada. 

The United States has been pulled directly into this affair, with the Department of Justice announcing in November the thwarted murder of Canadian-American Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, an associate of Nijjar who was also an advocate for the Sikh separatist movement. U.S. prosecutors are asserting that the accused, Nikhil Gupta, was directed by an official of the Indian government, Vikash Yadav.

As each others’ “closest allies,” the United States has a moral obligation to support Canada in this dispute, despite the US’ growing financial and strategic ties with India. Additionally, the legal and ideological ramifications of not condemning these extrajudicial killings threatens American interests as well.

India is not only a major trading partner for the United States, but also a key ally in the security sphere. It’s proximity to China has also helped counterbalance and deter the latter’s influence and promote democracy in the region, a cause that is incredibly important to the United States.

However, the importance of the Canadian-American alliance cannot be understated. They share the longest border of two countries in the world, trade hundreds of billions of dollars between them, have close military relations, and similar cultures. The partnership strengthens both nations on a global stage in multiple sectors. A lack of condemnation towards India regarding this issue not only sends a signal to Canada that their shared values of due process and democracy and close relationship are less important than placating India, but also sends a global message of acceptance of India’s actions.

The United States and India have a strong partnership that is founded upon the shared ideal of democracy. Extrajudicial killing contradicts the core of democracy, and violates the fundamental right to life that all individuals have, leading the United States to explicitly condemn it. A supposed democratic institute such as the Indian government must protect this right and punish those who violate it, and an ally of the United States should share such a cardinal value.

Not only does the Indian constitution protect the right to life in Article 21, but the Indian government has signed numerous international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which the United States has also signed) that affirm that the right to life is protected. Specifically, the ICCPR affirms individuals’ rights to a fair trial and due process, both of which were violated in the case of this extrajudicial killing. 

The fact that the government of an American ally is acting in such discordance with our fundamental values is a huge ideological concern. Not standing with Canada in this dispute sends a conflicting global message about what the United States stands for, weakening its position as the leader of the free world and a powerful global player overall. Furthermore, failing to condemn India’s actions sends a message that these extrajudicial killings are acceptable, suggesting to India—and potentially other nations—that there are no foreign relations consequences for such breaches of international law, thereby emboldening them to continue.

This is an incredibly slippery slope of injustice. It is imperative that the United States makes it known that they stand by their foundational values.

Nuclear Fears: The Death of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the Future of Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By: Emma Kim

In 2015, Iran, the US, and several other world powers entered an agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This agreement attempted to restrict the revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which ultimately proved successful, with Iran agreeing to in-depth investigations of their nuclear facilities and a subsequent dismantling of their nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. 

This agreement remained in effect until 2018, when President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the deal, claiming it was one-sided. Iran initially claimed that they would continue to honor the agreement, but as the Trump administration’s sanctions increased, Tehran began to violate the deal. This started with stockpiling stores of low-enriched uranium at levels above the established limits and escalated to a complete abandonment of uranium enrichment restrictions. 

Iran worked to develop the use of nuclear power with the assistance of the United States Atoms for Peace Program from the 1950s continuing into 1970s, even becoming one of the original 62 signatories of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NTP), intending to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. However, following the Iranian revolution of 1979, nuclear projects were mostly halted, and US support ceased. 

In the late 1980s and early 90s, following a costly war with Iraq, Iran resumed its nuclear program with the help of China, Pakistan, and Russia. However, concerns quickly arose regarding undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran, reinforcing US skepticism that Iran was using its civilian nuclear program to hide its nuclear weapons development. 

Tensions between the US and Iran were high during the early 2000s and escalated further following the US withdrawal from the JCPOA. Longtime US ally Israel published a report in 2018 detailing previous Iranian nuclear activities, which US President Donald Trump cited as justification in the US’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, and no meaningful reconciliation were made during the remainder of Trump's term. 

When Joe Biden was elected president, he began making attempts to salvage the JCPOA. In 2022, Tehran and Washington made significant progress, but Iranian demands for changes to the agreement, coupled with US concerns regarding the suppression of domestic protests in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of Iran’s morality police ultimately led to a collapse in dialogue.

Following the outbreak of war in Ukraine, Iran began supplying Russia with weaponry and has continued to do so into the present day. Exacerbated by growing hostilities between Iran and Israel following the October 7th attack by Hamas on Israel and subsequent Israeli bombardment of the Gaza strip, little to any hope remains of renewal of the JCPOA. 

The death of the JCPOA has become increasingly relevant as Iranian nuclear advancements continue to accelerate. In April of 2024, it was believed that Iran’s “breakout time”—the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb was close to zero. Slowing Iran’s equipment to produce nuclear weaponry was one of the JCPOA’s primary goals, explaining the strict caps on the amount of uranium Iran could stockpile that were part of the agreement.

In December of 2024, reports announced that Iran’s enrichment of uranium has reached levels that are near bomb grade, a likely sign that Iran is approaching capability of constructing nuclear weaponry. While the previous reports from April had indicated 60% purity, reports released in December point towards 90% purity, an amount that most believe can have no civilian justification. While Iran insists its nuclear development has been primarily in the pursuit of energy production, these recent developments question the validity of these claimed motives.

It is unclear what Iran’s purpose in developing nuclear weapons would be. While it is plausible that Iran is shoring up its defenses toward US-Israeli joint opposition following the onset of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian region, it is also possible that Iran intends to create a bargaining chip in the face of Donald Trump’s return to office in the US. As Trump was the one to initially withdraw from the JCPOA, his return to office potentially poses an opportunity for renegotiation, although Trump has pledged that if he were ever to enter an agreement with Iran, it would be far more strict than the one initiated by the Obama administration.

At this time the future of Iranian Nuclear Weaponry is unclear, and heightened tensions in the Middle East between US-backed Israel and Iran-backed Lebanon continue to complicate the path forward. As the US prepares for Donald Trump’s re-entry into the white house and Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, the U.S. and its Western allies must weigh the choice between making concessions to Iran to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and confronting the potential consequences of refusing to do so.