Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
Later that year, Waltz also argued that the strategy of combining sanctions with diplomacy was unlikely to dissuade Iran from developing its nuclear capacity.Second, Waltz failed to foresee the success of the nuclear negotiations with Iran (or their "failure" from the perspective of those who actually wanted a nuclear-armed Iran).At a time when the U.S. is already in a nuclear standoff with North Korea, the last thing it needs is to raise a similar risk in the Middle East.Of course, there are notable differences between North Korea and Iran. The most obvious is that Iran's nuclear program did not take off, whereas North Korea – which, unlike Iran, withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty – already has an estimated 60 nuclear warheads and seems to be making progress toward a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. In short: An all-out military conflict with North Korea would entail immediate global risks.As Waltz observed, nuclear arms have a tendency to spread.
Turkish democracy down but not out
A new direction for the planet’s sake
The lost spirit of the G-20
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE