LyrArc Article Gist
Nuclear arms control SALT treaties expire Feb 2026 - need for new negotiations as the treaties were obsolete, did not include China, smaller nuclear weapons, and weapons from space. The SALT arms limitation treaty was first signed in 1972 by Brezhnev with Nixon. These treaties went through a second version and were renewed. The US no longer thinks this is relevant as China is not included, and smaller nuclear weapons, ones from space are not included and new negotiations are the best way to conduct true arms limitation. An accompanying video in NYT by David Sanger goes into these aspects of talks. Rafael Gross, head of IEA International Atomic Agency, says- You wouldn’t negotiate the same treaty again. There are new technologies that are not covered by the treaty — hypersonic missiles, undersea nuclear weapons, space weapons. And there are many other countries that, for one reason or another, feel now as if they may need a nuclear arsenal of their own.” This is the reason. It also happens that in 2026 US and Russia could coordinate their efforts, so that new US weapons may be needed as other risks could emerge from other places. There are smaller nuclear powers and new nations that might develop nuclear weapons as the US nuclear umbrella may be seen as not fully dependable. This new thinking would be that US and Russia may not see themselves as adversaries but work together to prevent nuclear risks from other sources. This is also why the US (and Russia) may want to wind down smaller regional conflicts, reduce their reliance on their own alliances, so that nuclear cooperation between nuclear powers US, Russia, China, and India may lead to control of nuclear weapons in a larger sense from space and from smaller countries that might develop nuclear weapons as has happened in Iran, which might create new risks that cannot be managed. A belligerent North Korea could lead to South Korea and Japan developing a nuclear weapon. This is also why the Ukraine conflict has run its course and it is in no one's interest to let the Nordics or Britain continue the conflict. The US, Russia, China, India, Brazil should not let middle or smaller powers continue regional or historical conflicts, and promote settlement through peace talks of such conflicts, as it inevitably leads to damaging the interests of billions of people around the world in peaceful cooperation and tackling challenges that affect the quality of life. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The world today is in a much better position to complete the transition to zero dependence on the volatile Middle East for oil. Today in 2026 the world's largest nations 1. US   2. China  3. India  4. Germany are all free of Middle East oil (India through waivers for Russian sources). European Union and UK is at about 12% which can be quickly substituted from the US+ Venezuela and other sources. US is self sufficient in oil and gas and exports oil to the UK, India, Germany and the European Union. Canada is self sufficient. Germany gets only 6% of its oil from the Middle East, the UK 12%, Spain 13% and Italy 14%. The Iran war is likely to shift more of the needs of UK, Spain and Italy to other more stable sources including oil from the US and Venezuela managed by the US, and other sources. This means that US policymakers can act in the best interests of all the nations of the world for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and long range ballistic missiles. Germany is moving rapidly to renewable energy and this could bring its dependence on the Middle East to zero. India will meet its needs from Russia for the time being till it also shifts to oil from US+ Venezuela. India get 55% of its oil from the Middle East or about 2.7 million b/d. Russia was an important source of oil for India till the US trade agreement called for it to shift- a 30 day waiver and extension means India can get this oil from Russia without sanctions for the duration of the war. Reducing European demand and Indian demand frees up oil for Japan and South Korea on the world market the other 2 countries dependent on Middle East oil- Japan importing 95% of its oil consumption with imports of 2.5 million b/d and South Korea importing about 2 million b/d or 70% of its consumption. This means Japan and South Korea need a new strategy as they are overexposed to one source just as Germany was and learned a difficult lesson to diversify its sources. Japan has learned to reduce consumption for the same level of GDP and some of this can be through conservation, also tried in Germany in the last 4 years. During the 4 years. of Ukraine war Germany had to find ways to diversify sources Japan and South Korea will need rapidly to do the same in the Iran War. This means that only Japan and South Korea because of their lack of policy direction and vigilance have allowed this overdependence on the Gulf region,  (even as Germany diversified its sources, DJT and Israel were firm on nuclear weapons policy) they failed to see signs that they should diversify. Today in 2026 the world's largest nations 1. US 2. China 3. India 4. Germany are all free of Middle East oil (Indi through waivers for Russian sources), European Union and UK is at about 12% which can be quickly substituted from the US+ Venezuela and other sources.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Iran has collected 60% enriched uranium for 2 years by 2023, enough for 2 nuclear weapons, says this report in the WSJ. Israeli premier Netanyahu says this would invite a strike if weapons grade uranium is converted into a weapon. In this situation after Iran provided drones to Russia, president Biden has renewed efforts to reduce the level of escalation in the relations with Iran, opening up talks in New York and through Oman. Iran wants money that is held in other countries for oil and gas deliveries after US economic sanctions on Iran, to be released in exchange for limits on nuclear work and prisoner release. The Biden administration has approved 2.5 billion euros in payments by Iraq. Another $7 billion could be released from South Korea if diplomatic talks lead to Iran taking steps the US seeks from Iran. 

LyrArc Article Gist
US policy is to end war as soon as nuclear threat is over- DJT on Iran war on March 31 2026. When the US feels Iran 'won't be able to come up with a nuclear weapon, then we'll leave,' says DJT. US is self sufficient and exports oil to Europe. It doesn't need Iranian oil. DJT makes that clear to allies in Europe who have not taken a stand in the war and limited access to their airbases, saying as Starmer did yesterday that Britain did not want to expand the war. Really, the US does not want to expand the war. DJT's MAGA base does not want this war, and Biden's base does not want this war. US does not need Straits of Hormuz- it is Britain, Italy and EU countries, mainly China, Japan, South Korea that need the Straits of Hormuz. Speaking for the US DJT tells these countries in Europe to get the oil themselves in the Straits. He also tells China to get the oil from the Straits- if they need it and are so complacent as to get 90% of their imports from Hormuz after 40 years of disruptions and wars, as China does. DJT said- "If France or some other country wants to get oil or gas, they'll go up through the Hormuz Strait, they'll go right up there, and they'll be able to fend for themselves. What happens with the strait we're not going to have anything to do with, because these countries, China, China will go up and they'll fuel up their beautiful ships... and they'll take care of themselves. There's no reason for us to do it." "The USA won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!" ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Following the fifth North Korean nuclear test DW.com talks with Rudiger Frank about the test and what this means. Frank says the negotiations with North Korea and efforts to limit the program so far have been a colossal failure. Tests have continued and without a change in strategy more tests will be followed by the usual condemnations by world leaders and further sanctions. Frank says this change in strategy would include recognizing North Korea as a nuclear state, and getting North Korea to ensure the weapons are safe and secure in the country, getting a clear idea of what and where the weapons are. The International Atomic Agency would be asked to go in and make inspections. The next step would be to freeze the program at some level agreed to. This is a tough step to take but it only recognizes the reality of the situation, and continued development by North Korea of nuclear weapons if no steps for change are taken. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Rex Tillerson, U.S. Secretary of State takes a strong stand on North Korean missile testing and nuclear program in a visit to Seoul and Beijing. He said the U.S. would be forced to take pre-emptive action "if they elevate their threat of their weapons program"  to an unacceptable level. Continuing a policy of the Obama administration following missile tests by North Korea, the Trump administration has rejected any talks with North Korea. Tillerson said that "the policy of strategic patience has ended." It was also meant to signal U.S. intentions before Tillerson goes to Beijing from Seoul. President Trump commented on Twitter; "North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been "playing" the United States for years. China has done little to help." Because China sees North Korea as a bargaining chip with the U.S., Japan and South Korea, the situation has ended repeatedly in a impasse with the North Korean nuclear and missile program continuing during the Bush and Obama administrations. This has also meant that North Korea was unlikely to collapse on its own, with China pursuing a policy of using North Korea as part of its defense policies in the region, as pointed out by Sanger in this report. As the North's missile program continues the U.S., and with the North seeing the missile program as the only way to ensure the survival of the regime, the U.S. needed to come up with a new way to tackle the situation.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Stephen Bosworth was appointed by Hillary Clinton as U.S. Representative for North Korea Policy. He is one of America's best diplomats who served in several postings overseas before becoming Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts. Prof. Drezner points to the work done by Bosworth in keeping dialogue with North Korea alive, till a solution can be found. He also cites Chinese analysts who say pressuring China comes from a worn playbook, that China would not agree to reunification on the Korean peninsula, to bring U.S. influence right up to its borders. South Koreans have been wary of reunification because of the decade long experience of integrating East Germany. As a result new solutions need to be found and the valuable work of diplomats like Bosworth is badly needed to keep dialogue alive for a solution to be found.

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman highlights the importance of an interview with President Obama by Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg. In this interview Obama gives a thoughtful understanding of what it means if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. The greatest danger is in nuclear proliferation. Obama brings to this an understanding of this issue from the time he focussed on this issue as a student at Columbia University, when he described the risks of nuclear proliferation in the Columbia student newspaper. There is the risk of an escalation in the development of nuclear weapons in the Middle East first, and then elsewhere. And there is the risk that nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands. The situation would create problems like that faced in North Korea or in the India-Pakistan region, but increased by many times the current dangers. The entire nuclear de-proliferation effort and the efforts to de-nuclearize weapons stockpiles that took decades to accomplish with the Soviet Union could come undone- and it would then be necessary for all countries to invest in advanced technologies for defending against nuclear weapons, setting in motion another arms race. The current situation reminds people that the issues raised by nuclear weapons development will always be with us, and require a worldwide concerted effort, at official and public level, bringing in scientists, public opinion worldwide, and educating the public in all countries of the larger danger to mankind. The issues need to be put in the right context beyond nations and politics, beyond international conflicts and competing interests or ideologies, including Israel, Iran and any other nation looking for nuclear weapons as a solution for conflicts. Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn after a series of meetings at the Hoover Institution called for the update of the old policies of nuclear deterrance based on mutually assured destruction used with the Soviet Union, to reflect the new threat of terrorism- in an op-ed NYT 3/7/2011. The focus of this effort is on a new Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, with all nations giving up nuclear material to an international nuclear material bank. Senator Obama strongly supported the efforts of Senators Lugar and Nunn in de-proliferation work after the collapse of the Soviet Union and joined the senators on one of their trips- Broad and Sanger, NYT, 7/5/2009. A major effort to reduce NATO, U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons is called for to lead by example, providing a framework for other means of settling regional conflicts and educating public opinion in these countries, and moving forward the negotiating of the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. In many ways public opinion will have to lead the way in all countries as governments can lag behind- the efforts of Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar and the many unnamed people in the Soviet Union who aided their efforts show the importance of this....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist points out (in this cover issue on India-Pakistan relations) several fundamental facts. The first is that the current state of relations betweeen India and Pakistan hurts Pakistan the most. It makes a much smaller country and smaller economy bear the burden of defense against a large neighbor- defense takes up much needed allocation of funds for infrastructure and development, education and healthcare. It also weakens democratic institutions and their development by an overdependence on the military for governance. Poor India-Pakistan relations have significant adverse effects on the U.S. In fighting the Taliban U.S. forces are fighting a force that Pakistan's military helped create and support from its early beginnings as a way to counter Indian influence. With an Indian-Pakistani peace settlement of issues in Kashmir and other outstanding issues the U.S. would be in a significantly better position to disengage from the region, especially when the entire Middle East is moving in a new direction in 2011. Consider the difficulties in establishing peace in Northern Ireland, and between Turkey and Greece, and the difficulties of establishing peace between India and Pakistan cannot be considered even more difficult. Pakistan and India muddle along- neither side is doing much to take the initiative. For the U.S. disengagement from South Asia can be best achieved by pushing for a settlement between the two countries. Pakistan and India have much to gain from a settlement. Considering the progress made in Ireland, such places as Yugoslavia, and in Turkish-Greek relations, there is a lot more that can be done and should be done to bring India and Pakistan together. In Ireland diplomatic efforts were made by U.S. envoy George Mitchell, and in Yugoslavia U.S. envoy Holbrooke made diplomatic efforts towards the Dayton accords. Greek-Turkish relations have advanced to the point where Erdogan and Papandreou, the Greek and Turkish prime ministers, discuss solutions to the Greek debt crisis. This includes options to reduce Greece's defense expenditures in the light of Turkey's new foreign policies. The lack of such efforts to break the deadlock between India and Pakistan by the U.S,. the U.K. and other countries involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, the emphasis on a military solution supported first by Gen. McChrystal, and then by by Gen. Petraeus, all show a lack of understanding of the real issues that need to be tackled- issues relating to a peace settlement between India and Pakistan....