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.

Lethal Autonomous Weapons: What Are They and How Do We Address Them?

By: Charlotte Sparling

November 25, 2024

What used to be a myth is now a reality. Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs), at their core, are weapons that act and make lethal decisions without human intervention, effectively thinking on their own. They are similar to drones but lack the crucial element of human oversight. However, not even the international community has a clear definition of what they are, contributing to the challenge of how to adequately address them. 

The development of these weapons poses several major concerns that must be addressed.

First, there are serious questions about LAWs violating international law. UN Secretary-General António Guterres argues these weapons are morally concerning and violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Two of the core elements of IHL are distinction and accountability. LAWs act without human oversight; there is no human verification of targets. Facial recognition is one method to identify targets but opens the door to ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, like any other technology, LAWs will inevitably malfunction, resulting in the question of who is then accountable. If a robot accidentally kills the wrong target, is the machine accountable?

Second, the question of regulation is uncertain and pressing. There is no clear regulation of LAWs, yet their potential to cause such sweeping impacts makes their regulation imperative. To prevent crises, standards must be established. The international community has recognized the importance of discussing this issue, but what exactly those steps would be is unclear. 

Despite this pessimistic outlook, regulation is possible. Land mines, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons were all regulated in some manner. There is no reason why the same could not be done for LAWs, but such regulation must first be preceded by establishment of a solid definition. 

The truth is that LAWs are here. We must move forward, acknowledge, and act accordingly. In the Russia-Ukraine war, there has been talk of Russia deploying weapons with some autonomous capabilities. Turkey, Israel, Russia, and South Korea have reportedly deployed similar weapons. Both the US and China are also investing heavily in this technology. No one wants to be the one without the newest and shiniest toys.

Part of what makes LAWs of interest is their life-preserving abilities. Without having to send troops who are often clouded by emotions into risky situations, LAWs can be more accurate, mitigate the loss of life, and reduce damage to the surrounding areas. It is important to recognize these benefits as the march of innovation cannot be halted. 

Ukraine, recognizing these benefits, has invested heavily in autonomous drones and similar technologies. In a war that is not likely to end in a decisive Ukrainian win, any methods to minimize the sacrifice of Ukrainian lives are imperative. While Ukraine’s weapons still require human intervention, they are only one step off from LAWs. How the war develops with these weapons will likely serve as a turning point for the future of autonomous warfare.

On the global diplomatic scale, opinions are mixed. The UN and many countries support a full ban on LAWs or regulation at a minimum. The US supports regulation over a complete ban. China and Russia, meanwhile, have yet to clearly indicate their positions. 

Instead of an outright ban, the solution is to establish regulations. By embracing the reality that LAWs will likely play a crucial role in future warfare, guidelines can help shape the role this technology plays while simultaneously reaping its benefits. Ignoring these weapons could lead to their misuse and make humanitarian violations far more likely. The first step in regulation is to create a singular definition of what LAWs are. It is through these efforts that the international community can adequately address ethical concerns. 

Climate Change Threatens National Security

By: Charlotte Sparling

In the latest UN climate report, the Secretary-General starkly warned that we are in the midst of  “a ‘code red for humanity.’ ” The climate is collapsing and national security is at risk. While green energy is the solution, and investment into the sector is crucial to protect national security, this is not a simple fix.

Globally, accounting for 80% of energy production, 75% of greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly 90% of carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels are the largest contributors to climate change. Consequently, the World Health Organization has reported that around 99% of the world’s population breathe in air that has exceeded safe air quality levels, causing millions of deaths a year and $2.9 trillion in health and economic issues. 

This climate crisis extends beyond health concerns and into national security threats. Before Russia’s war on Ukraine, over 40% of Europe’s imported gas and roughly 25% of their oil came from Russia. When Russia turned off the tap, oil and gas prices skyrocketed. 

Energy is fundamental to a successful country. The power and influence fossil fuel exporting countries have over their tethered receiving countries, threatens the recipient’s national security. Hospitals, schools, homes, businesses, and governmental activities are all reliant upon energy. Cut that off, and the country is at its knees.  

Yet, Europe recognized their Achilles heel was their fossil fuel reliance, and shifted faster towards green energy. As they moved, so too did the world, which sped up the global transition towards green energy upwards of five to ten years.

Green is on the rise; out of the renewable energies, solar, wind, and hydropower are the three most promising. This transition to renewable energy is imperative, but the solution is by no means simple.

As a cheap and abundant source of energy, solar appears to be the perfect solution. If utilized to its full extent, one hour of sunlight generates more energy than the world consumes in a year. Yet, solar contributes only 3.6% to electricity production globally. This huge gap in utilizing solar is largely due to how expensive and difficult it is to store the energy. 

Wind, another cheap energy source, also is inefficient with storing excess energy. Simultaneously, wind turbines cause environmental concerns, such as bird collisions, habitat disruptions, and noise pollution. 

Hydropower outproduces all other forms of renewable energy in US electricity production and begins to address the energy storage problem. In these systems, water is pumped up to a higher elevation, from an initial energy source, and is released downhill through a turbine that generates energy when necessary. However, hydropower systems have problems of their own, including specific geographical needs, access to an energy source, and high capital inputs.

While pumped hydropower systems are one approach to the storage issue, batteries are another. The most common option is lithium-ion batteries. Unfortunately, these often utilize fossil fuels in transportation and manufacturing, while also containing nickel and cobalt, which are associated with complications of their own. 

Contaminating the air, water, soil, and natural habitats, nickel mining is extremely costly. The extraction itself produces sulfur dioxide and metal-infused dust. In Indonesia, nickel mining has caused deforestation, water pollution, and human health concerns. 

The mining of cobalt employs unsafe practices, child labor, and unregulated disposal of toxic waste, which causes water and crop pollution. In turn, this destabilizes the local regions and makes them more vulnerable.

The truth is this: no energy source is perfect. Countries must continue to fund research and development to progress this green transition forward. 

Currently, 80% of people live in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels. To avoid being vulnerable to these countries turning off supply or fossil fuel depletion, green energy should be explored as a safer and a more abundant alternative. However, this assumes green energy is a viable solution, thus stressing the need for more resources to be devoted to solving this issue. 

Simply put, investing in green not only protects the environment, but also releases other countries from the grasp of fossil-fuel producing countries, which, in turn, boosts national security.