Pascal Lottaz speaks with Dr. Ivana Nikolić Hughes of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Prof. Peter Kuznick of American University about the NPT review conference, nuclear deterrence, first strike thinking, Trump and launch power, pressure for more states to seek nuclear weapons, the role of US allies in the Gulf, Europe and Japan, and the small but real hope offered by the nuclear ban treaty and public action.

To watch the interview on Neutrality Studies, view above or click HERE.

I want to begin by sharing a personal anecdote from just this morning. I woke up to a text message from my daughter that simply said, in all caps: PASSED. Inge is a sixth-year medical student at the University of Belgrade in Serbia, and at around 3 a.m. New York time she was taking her very last exam of medical school. So, of course, the news that she passed was incredibly exciting—and all the more special because today also happens to be my husband’s and my 25th wedding anniversary.

As I went about my morning feeling enthused and happy, I was in the kitchen when, let’s just say, a glass jar full of decaf coffee went flying through the air and shattered into pieces, with one of my fingers managing to encounter one of the shards and to start bleeding profusely. I’m glad to report that after some pain—and a lot of gauze and tape—my finger seems to be okay, although the same certainly cannot be said for the coffee jar.

Why am I telling you this? To me, this story illustrates two things about our world. First, that it is filled with personal achievements and milestones—a world in which we are fortunate to witness births, weddings, graduations, job offers, pet adoptions, and family reunions. It is a world that humans have built over centuries and millennia by working together, seeking knowledge and understanding, building cities like the incredible New York we are all in today, and preserving rainforests in the Amazon, through achieving and celebrating milestones. And often, the personal is also communal. Today may be a big day for my daughter as an individual, but her degree and her commitment to medicine will enable her to help countless people into the future as she treats patients and works to improve their physical and mental health.

The second thing this story illustrates has to do with the coffee jar. Although far from a tragedy, the broken jar incident reminds us that things can and do go wrong—often when we least expect them. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have reasons to celebrate, and that is all well and good. But too frequently—especially these days—it feels as though numerous things are going wrong, leaving behind shattered communities, innocent victims, and broken ecosystems. A flying coffee jar made a mess in my kitchen, and I soon found myself thinking about what it would be like to try to clean up my apartment if my building had been bombed and I had been lucky to survive. I thought about the aftermath and the cleanup of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both of which I have been very fortunate to visit on two recent trips to Japan, including last August for our Choose Hope Symposium.

Nuclear weapons may be just one of the many problems facing our world, just one of the things that could go wrong, but they are also the most dramatic—and I am ready to debate anyone who says otherwise. A nuclear war could destroy human civilization in a matter of minutes, and if you haven’t already, I would urge you to read Annie Jacobsen’s book, Nuclear War: A Scenario to understand exactly what this means. Nothing comes close to the scale or immediacy of the threat posed by these monstrous weapons of mass destruction. To underscore just a few basic facts: there are approximately 12,000 nuclear warheads in existence today, most of them far more powerful than the atomic bombs used in the U.S. attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their impact would go far beyond the deaths and injuries in attacked cities, altering environmental conditions on our planet through effects of radiation, nuclear winter, and ozone layer destruction in unimaginable proportions.

So where does hope come from? Where can we find hope in such challenging times? To me, it comes from gatherings like this, from the inspiration we can draw in the immense legacies of Daisaku Ikeda, David Krieger, the hibakusha, and so many others who have spread a message of peace since the birth of the nuclear age. It comes from partnerships like that between the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Soka Gakkai International, and from those who support our work—believing, as we do, that a world free of nuclear weapons is not only necessary, but possible.

Hope also comes from the fact that more than half of all UN member states are now party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and from young people like Anduin who are building connections between nuclear disarmament and climate action.

This evening, before we go out to celebrate our anniversary, my husband and I will attend a lecture at Columbia by Professor Anaïs Maurer, whose book The Ocean on Fire explores the legacy of Pacific activism in both nuclear disarmament and climate change. Hope to me comes from activism of communities affected by nuclear weapons and from conversations at every level—in university lecture halls, at dinner tables, in podcast studios, and at conferences like this one.

I wish to thank our friends at the Missions of Philippines and Kiribati and at Soka Gakkai International for their partnership, not only in putting this event together, but in pursuing a nuclear weapons free world and nuclear justice. I also want to thank the Honorable Ambassadors, Mr. Aishima, and our exceptional panelists for their wonderful contributions to today’s event and for their important work. To Mr. Matsuura – it is an honor to be with you and to learn from you. You and all of the hibakusha are an inspiration.

And thank you to all of you for being with us today and let me to invite you to join us in choosing hope and spreading a message of peace and disarmament.

Honorable President, Distinguished Delegates, Colleagues, and Friends,

We are living in a decisive moment. Humanity faces a choice, whether consciously or not, to continue down a path of conflict that leads toward ultimate destruction or to renounce its old ways and center peace at the heart of all its efforts.

International law, built painstakingly over decades and even centuries to prevent such an unfathomable catastrophe, is under brazen and relentless attack today. At the heart of this divergence lies a fundamental question: whether states may claim a right to wage war without restraint, and whether use and even possession of weapons with potential to end human civilization can ever be justified. These are precisely the issues at the core of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)—whose future we have gathered to discuss at this Review Conference.

Nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are not separate tracks toward a safer world—they are intertwined and inseparable paths.

Our world is a time-ticking bomb. There are more than 12,000 nuclear warheads in existence—each capable of killing hundreds of thousands, some even millions of people, and any one of which could trigger a chain reaction leading to full-scale nuclear war in less time than this session will last.

More than 40 years ago, Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev reminded us that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” And yet today, we hear renewed calls to use nuclear weapons in the name of “saving lives,” alongside threats that contemplate the destruction of entire societies.

The five nuclear-weapon states recognized under the NPT, the United States, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, France, and China, possess over 95% of the world’s nuclear arsenal. With that power comes not only a moral responsibility, but a clear legal obligation under Article VI of this Treaty: to pursue negotiations in good faith to achieve not only nuclear disarmament, but also total and complete general disarmament.

Nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are not separate tracks toward a safer world—they are intertwined and inseparable paths. As Joseph Rotblat warned in his 1995 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: “If the militarily most powerful and least threatened states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy for disaster.”

We join the voices of hibakusha and countless others who have come before us in urging all NPT States Parties to take immediate and meaningful action:

1. Condemn and cease all military combat, including wars that risk escalation toward nuclear conflict, and reaffirm the primacy of international law and peaceful resolution of disputes.

2. Unequivocally renounce the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, and reject policies such as “launch on warning” and “first-use” that heighten, rather than reduce, the risk of nuclear war.

3. Commit to a concrete, time-bound path toward a world free of nuclear weapons, including by joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The first step in this journey must be clear to all: The United States and the Russian Federation, which together possess more than 85% of the world’s nuclear arsenals, must urgently restart bilateral negotiations to reduce and ultimately eliminate their stockpiles. The remaining nuclear-armed states must pause all modernization and arsenal increase programs, and commit to a transparent, verifiable, and irreversible process of disarmament.

4. Recognize and assist all victims of the nuclear age, including survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those impacted by more than 2,000 nuclear explosions during the so-called nuclear testing period, and uranium mining workers and others harmed by the the development of nuclear weapons, ensuring justice, support, and environmental remediation.

This call is not just an abstract moral appeal; it is a prerequisite for human survival. The credibility of the NPT and the future of humanity depend on the actions we take over the next three weeks.

In the words of Joseph Rotblat: “The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion; if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, that will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task.”

Thank you, Honorable President.

False historical narratives abound in our contentious and divided world, as leaders and complicit historians endeavor to use public understanding of the past to push policies and gain control in the present. One of the most egregious cases is the widely accepted account of the decision by U.S. leaders to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9 of 1945, respectively.

The generally held view, which is frequently taught in schools across the U.S. and beyond, is that the bombings were necessary to save lives, both American and Japanese; just how many lives were saved has itself been subject to debate, though President Harry Truman claimed half a million U.S. lives in his 1955 memoirs. This assessment is not only disputed by the facts, but it ignores the realities of what the bombings meant for the initiation of the Cold War and the future of humanity, in a world long awash with civilization-ending weapons.

Most importantly, the bombings quite simply were unnecessary. There were at least three ways that Japanese surrender could have been induced without the instantaneous killing of more than a hundred thousand civilians and another several hundred thousand men, women, and children being subjected to third-degree burns, injuries, and radiation exposure that would either end their lives shortly thereafter, or cause health problems in the years and decades following the fateful attacks.

One option was that the U.S. could have altered the surrender terms to make them acceptable to the Japanese. What most Japanese leaders wanted in early August of 1945 was to keep their Emperor and the kokutai or emperor system. The Americans, who knew this from intercepted cables, should have accepted this term; they would eventually agree anyway out of self-interest. Sadly, most of Truman’s top military and political advisors urged this course of action, but Truman, with the support of Secretary of State Jimmy Byrnes, refused.

Another possibility was to allow the Soviet Union to proceed with its ground invasion upon declaring a war on Japan at midnight on August 8. The Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff predicted on April 11, “If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable.” As Japan’s Supreme War Council stated in May, “At the present moment when Japan is waging a life-or-death struggle against the U.S. and Britain, Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire.” Japan would have surrendered once it saw that it would be fighting both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Moreover, President Truman knew that the Soviets were about to invade, and wrote at least twice that that would end the war.

The last, albeit arguably the weakest, alternative was to demonstrate the enormous power of the atomic bomb by exploding it, as was done on July 16 in New Mexico, in the presence of foreign leaders, and as was recommended by a group of scientists in the Franck Report. Such a display could have exerted sufficient pressure on the Japanese government, especially in conjunction with the changed surrender terms and a warning about Soviet entry, to precipitate Japanese surrender. In fact, seven of America’s eight five-star admirals and generals in 1945 said the bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both. Truman’s personal chief of staff Admiral William Leahy, who also chaired the meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the use of the atomic bombs put us on the moral level of the ”barbarians of the dark ages.” General Douglas MacArthur wrote that the Japanese would have “gladly” surrendered months earlier if we’d told them they could keep the emperor.

Beyond the fact that there were multiple ways to ensure the end of the war without committing the gravest nuclear crimes, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent a violent entry into the nuclear age, with historians and scientists arguing that they mark the beginning of the Cold War, rather than the end of the hot one. By fancifully hoping that the bombs would force Japanese surrender before the Soviets made too much ground, the U.S. sought to diminish the Soviet contribution to the final outcome of the war that consumed Europe and much of Asia. At the same time, the U.S. leaders also managed to demonstrate to the Soviets their possession of a “new weapon,” failing to recognize, as many of the scientists did at the time, the near certainty of a nuclear arms race that indeed came to pass and haunts us to this day. And the Soviets, who knew clearly that the Japanese were defeated and desperate to surrender because the Japanese had sought Soviet assistance in securing better surrender terms, saw themselves as the real target and not Japan—a view that was shared and stated explicitly by Manhattan Project head General Leslie Groves. Groves admitted, “There was never from about two weeks from the time I took charge of this Project any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis.”

Furthermore, the bombings didn’t just set up a decades-long rivalry between the two states that stood diametrically opposed to each other in their ideologies and economic systems at that very moment, it also set the world on a path toward nuclear weapons possession by many more states, nine at the latest count. Although nuclear weapons have not been used in a time of war ever since, their development and testing have left deep scars and much devastation around the world. And they have continued to threaten the world ever since.

Perhaps most shockingly, the U.S. used these unnecessary weapons knowing full well that it was opening up the door to ending life on our planet. Robert Oppenheimer warned the top political and military officials on May 31 that within three years we’d probably have weapons between 700 and 7000 times as powerful as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Upon receiving the report at Potsdam of how powerful the Alamagordo bomb test was, Truman wrote in his diary, “We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Ear, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.”

Why does getting this story right matter now?

At a moment when President Trump has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran “into the Stone Age,” genocidally declaring “a whole civilization will die tonight,” which Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) called “the ravings of a homicidal lunatic,” some have argued that like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, using a nuclear weapon or weapons on Iran would be the right choice, the moral choice, the winning choice. Such a stance should not be repudiated just on a moral level, but on a historical level, too.

Tucker Carlson recently stated that Trump is threating to use weapons that have never been used in time of war before. We agree. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki bear little to no resemblance to the kinds of weapons in today’s arsenals of not just the U.S., but all nine nuclear armed possessors. The differences are not only in the amount of energy they can produce, or the physical processes that underlie them, but also in the way in which they could be delivered in a matter of minutes via submarine-launched or intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is highly unlikely that a pilot would be dropping the bombs on Iran, the way that Paul Tibbets and Charles Sweeney did at the dawn of the nuclear age.

The argument has been made that lives would be saved if a nuclear weapon or weapons were used by Israel to attack Iran. This so-called argument fails to recognize not just the errors of history embedded in such statements, but also the threat that such an attack would pose to Israel and the whole world. Trump supporters like Mark Levin have done the same. And J.D., “the alleged dove,” Vance has announced that the U.S. has “tools in our toolkit that we so far haven’t decided to use,” but “the president…can decide to use them, and he will decide to use them if the Iranians don’t change their course of conduct.” All these bloodthirsty provocateurs could start by learning the actual history, followed by some basic facts of what would happen to Israel if IT were attacked with even several Hiroshima-style bombs. They should then review the rich scientific literature on what would happen to the planet and humanity in case of a full-blown nuclear war. We look forward to hearing about their conclusions.

Last August, as president-designate of the 11th Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT RevCon) to be convened later this month, I attended the commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing in Hiroshima.

Coming from Vietnam, to me the legacy of war and destruction is deeply personal. Yet, there is a singular, haunting power in the images in Hiroshima: entire neighborhoods incinerated, the shadow of a man etched permanently into stone steps, and anguished figures of women and children with their skin peeled, hanging. These images transcend an individual experience. They are seared into humanity’s collective memory.

Indeed, few events over the past century have shaped the world’s understanding of war and human survival as profoundly and systematically as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thankfully, through some combination of primal fear, a fragile international security architecture, restraint, and luck, those remain the only instances of nuclear weapons used in conflict.

The NPT was born at the height of the Cold War, when governments were still engaged in a costly nuclear arms race and subscribed to mutually-assured destruction (MAD) policies…

Read the full article on the Diplomat

H.E. Ambassador. Do Hung Viet is the Permanent Representative of Vietnam to the United Nations and currently serves as President-designate of the 11th Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Dr. Ivana Nikolić Hughes joined the Brad Carr Podcast on April 15, 2026 to talk about the major nuclear dangers that are escalated by the wars in Iran and Ukraine. If the war in Iran continues, the risks of nuclear war increase by an order of magnitude. Watch the full interview to learn more.

Alice Slater sat down for an interview with Anastasia Shakhidzhanova reflecting on the history of the nuclear age, the dangerous illusion of deterrence, and what the path to a nuclear-free world actually looks like.

Alice is one of the most consequential voices in the global nuclear disarmament movement. A tireless advocate since the Cold War era, she has spent decades on the front lines of the fight to abolish nuclear weapons -- founding and leading major organizations including Abolition 2000, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, and Economists Allied for Arms Reduction.

This interview is part of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Women Waging Peace Interview Series.

The end of restraint

New START was the last framework keeping nuclear competition in check. Its expiration removed ceilings on deployed warheads, ended inspections and data exchanges, and erased transparency. Predictability has given way to suspicion. The disarmament pillar of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is no longer eroding quietly; it is crumbling in plain view.

Law under attack

At the same time, the global legal order faces open defiance. The ongoing war involving the United States and Israel against Iran is raising urgent alarm among legal experts and international organizations. Many conclude that the use of force breached the United Nations Charter and failed to meet the strict self-defense requirement of an “imminent threat.”

Civilian areas, health centers, and infrastructure have been struck, forcing mass displacement and overwhelming aid systems. Each assault deepens humanitarian suffering — and signals indifference to the laws meant to limit it.

Silence as permission

The world’s silence, selective condemnation, and political hesitation are not neutral. They are forms of complicity. When violations pass without accountability, they do not fade — they multiply. Silence becomes permission: permission for escalation, repetition, and the erosion of every safeguard designed to protect civilians and restrain violence.

A dangerous convergence

We face three crises that are merging into one:

• Collapse of nuclear restraint

• Breakdown of international law

• Normalization of high-intensity warfare by major powers

Together, they feed instability and accelerate the decline of human security worldwide.

Human consequences

Nuclear weapons are not instruments of defense — they are devices of destruction. A single detonation would paralyze health systems, poison ecosystems, and scar generations. When laws already fail in conventional wars, the risk of nuclear escalation grows. The humanitarian reality must shape global action.

The urgent need for prohibition and accountability

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is not a distant ideal; it is a humanitarian necessity. When legal norms erode, human suffering expands. That truth demands response, not rhetoric.

Today calls for clarity and coordinated action:

• Governments must reaffirm the prohibition on the use of force and rebuild legal nuclear restraint.

• NPT States Parties must confront this breakdown honestly and reject double standards.

• Civil society must transform advocacy into persistent pressure for accountability and disarmament.

• Humanitarian and medical organizations must document and speak to the human toll of rising militarization.

• Media must stop isolating these crises; they form a single system of norm erosion.

A world that tolerates violations of law in one arena cannot hope to contain catastrophe in another.

The expiration of New START is not a technical deadline. It is a warning flare — intensified by war, deepened by silence, and made lethal by inaction. If the erosion of restraint continues unchecked, the question is no longer if the system will fail, but how severe the consequences will be. Strengthening humanitarian disarmament — from nuclear weapons to landmines and cluster munitions — is no longer a long-term aspiration. It is an immediate moral and survival imperative.

Every voice for restraint is a safeguard for life.

Dr. Ghassan Shahrour is coordinator of the Arab Human Security Network, a medical doctor, prolific writer, and human rights advocate specializing in health, disability, disarmament, and human security. He has contributed to global campaigns for peace, disarmament, and the rights of persons with disabilities.

(Desplácese hacia abajo para español / Scroll to end for Spanish)

In her book Nuclear War: A Scenario, investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen walks the reader through the unraveling of nuclear Armageddon in real time. Minute by agonizing minute. The trigger, in her scenario, is a “mad king”: the unpredictable, irrational leader of North Korea who launches a missile at the United States. The rest follows with terrifying, automated logic. Civilization ends not with a declaration of war, but with a chain of decisions no one can stop.

Jacobsen’s “mad king” is not a literary invention. It is a scenario that military planners take seriously: the feared “bolt-out-of-the-blue” attack launched not by strategic calculation, but by the whims of an unhinged leader with his finger on the button. It is considered one of the most plausible pathways to nuclear war precisely because it bypasses all the assumptions of rational deterrence.

When the book was published in 2024, the mad king was assumed to reside in Pyongyang. Today, many are looking elsewhere.

Last Tuesday, April 7, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “a whole civilization will die tonight” unless Iran agreed to his terms. The statement is, at minimum, a threat of mass annihilation directed at an entire people, language that, under international law, constitutes a genocidal threat. Whether or not nuclear weapons were implied, the rhetoric is unambiguous: the lives of millions are bargaining chips.

This is not an isolated outburst. It is a symptom of something structural.

Let’s look at who is attacking whom in today’s world: Russia, a nuclear-armed state, invaded Ukraine and continues its assault. The United States and Israel, both nuclear-armed, have carried out strikes against Iran, a non-nuclear state. India and Pakistan, both nuclear-weapon states, remain locked in recurring cycles of hostility. The pattern is not accidental. In every case, the aggressor possesses nuclear weapons.

This reveals the core lie of nuclear deterrence: that these weapons prevent war and provide security. They do not. What they provide is impunity. Nuclear arsenals do not stabilize the world; they distort it. They embolden aggression, erode diplomacy, and poison international relations. They create a two-tiered international order where the nuclear-armed few operate above the rules that bind everyone else.

The doctrine of deterrence, the idea that the threat of mutual destruction keeps the peace, rests on the assumption that leaders are rational actors. But deterrence is not a scientific law; it is a psychological bet. And when our luck runs out, as it eventually must, there will be no coming back. A full-scale nuclear exchange would kill tens of millions immediately, collapse the ozone layer, trigger a nuclear winter lasting years, and threaten the survival of our species. No country could ever prepare for such an event.

Trump’s conduct makes this gamble more dangerous than ever. He has rejected arms control treaties, announced the resumption of nuclear testing, and surrounded himself with advisors who speak openly of “unleashing overwhelming violence.” Reports have emerged of military commanders framing the war against Iran in apocalyptic religious terms. Meanwhile, as analysts Peter Kuznick and Ivana Nikolić Hughes have written, the ultimate taboo, the actual detonation of a nuclear weapon, may never have been closer to being broken.

The genocidal logic behind nuclear threats is not incidental. The very concept of annihilating an entire population, those deemed the “other”, is a stark expression of the dehumanization that makes atrocities possible.

“There are no right hands for the wrong weapons.” — Ban Ki-moon, former UN Secretary-General

If we navigate this moment without catastrophe, we must treat it as the wake-up call it is. The international community must redouble its efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. Not manage them, not modernize them, but eliminate them. The path already exists: the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), signed by 99 countries, provides a legally binding framework for universal rejection. No country that refuses to join it can honestly claim to oppose nuclear annihilation.

Annie Jacobsen’s mad king was meant to illustrate a danger lurking at the edges of the international order: unpredictable, irrational, and armed with the most destructive weapons ever built. The disturbing reality we face today is that this danger no longer lurks at the edges. It sits at the center. And the clock is ticking.

(En español)

En su libro Guerra nuclear: un escenario, la periodista de investigación Annie Jacobsen guía al lector a través del Armagedón nuclear en tiempo real; una agonía espeluznante que va contando minuto a minuto. En su escenario, el detonante es un “rey loco”: el líder impredecible e irracional de Corea del Norte que lanza un misil contra Estados Unidos, y el resto del relato sigue una lógica terrorífica y automatizada. La civilización no termina con una declaración de guerra, sino con una cadena de decisiones que nadie puede detener.

El “rey loco” de Jacobsen no es una invención literaria. Es un escenario que los planificadores militares se toman muy en serio: el temido ataque “de la nada”, lanzado no por cálculo estratégico, sino por los caprichos de un líder desequilibrado con el dedo en el botón. Se considera una de las vías más plausibles hacia una guerra nuclear, precisamente porque evade todos los supuestos de la disuasión racional.

Cuando el libro se publicó en 2024, se asumía que el rey loco residía en Pyongyang. Hoy, muchos ponen su mirada en otra parte.

El pasado martes, 7 de abril de 2026, el presidente estadounidense Donald Trump publicó en su red social Truth Social que “toda una civilización morirá esta noche” a menos que Irán aceptara sus condiciones. Como mínimo, semejante declaración es una amenaza de aniquilación masiva dirigida a todo un pueblo, un lenguaje que, bajo el derecho internacional, constituye una amenaza de genocidio. Tanto si las armas nucleares estaban implícitas como si no, la retórica es inequívoca: las vidas de millones de personas son moneda de cambio.

Esto no es un exabrupto aislado. Es un síntoma de algo estructural.

Observemos, en el mundo de hoy, quién ataca a quién: Rusia, un Estado con armas nucleares, invadió Ucrania y continúa su agresión. Estados Unidos e Israel, ambos nuclearmente armados, han atacado a Irán, un Estado sin armas nucleares. India y Pakistán, ambos Estados con armas nucleares, permanecen atrapados en ciclos recurrentes de hostilidad. Este patrón no es casualidad: en todos los casos, el agresor posee armas nucleares.

Esto revela la mentira central de la disuasión nuclear: que estas armas previenen la guerra y proporcionan seguridad. No lo hacen. Lo que proporcionan es impunidad. Los arsenales nucleares no estabilizan el mundo, lo distorsionan. Envalentonan la agresión, erosionan la diplomacia y envenenan las relaciones internacionales. Crean un orden internacional de doble rasero, en el que una minoría que tiene armas nucleares opera al margen de las reglas que todos los demás deben seguir.

La doctrina de la disuasión, la idea de que la amenaza de una destrucción mutua mantiene la paz, se basa en el supuesto de que los líderes son actores racionales. Pero la disuasión no es una ley científica; es una apuesta psicológica. Es, a fin de cuentas, mera suerte, y la suerte no es una estrategia. Cuando nuestra suerte se acabe, algo que inevitablemente ocurrirá, no habrá vuelta atrás. Un intercambio nuclear a gran escala mataría de forma inmediata a decenas de millones de personas, destruiría la capa de ozono, desencadenaría un invierno nuclear que duraría años y amenazaría la supervivencia de nuestra especie. Ningún país es capaz de prepararse para tal acontecimiento.

La conducta de Trump hace que esta apuesta sea más peligrosa que nunca. Ha rechazado los tratados de control de armas, ha anunciado la reanudación de los ensayos nucleares y se ha rodeado de asesores que hablan abiertamente de “desatar una violencia avasalladora”. Han surgido informes de comandantes militares que enmarcan la guerra contra Irán en términos apocalípticos. Mientras tanto, como han escrito los analistas Peter Kuznick e Ivana Nikolić Hughes, es posible que el tabú absoluto, la detonación de un arma nuclear, nunca haya estado tan cerca de romperse.

La lógica genocida implícita en las amenazas nucleares no es accidental. El mero concepto de aniquilar a toda una población, los considerados “otros”, es una expresión contundente de la deshumanización que hace posible cometer atrocidades.

“No existen las manos correctas para las armas equivocadas.” — Ban Ki-moon, ex Secretario General de la ONU

Si el mundo logra superar este momento sin que se produzca una catástrofe, debemos verlo como la llamada de atención que es. La comunidad internacional debe redoblar sus esfuerzos para eliminar las armas nucleares. No gestionarlas, no modernizarlas, sino eliminarlas. El camino ya existe: el Tratado sobre la Prohibición de las Armas Nucleares (TPAN), firmado por 99 países, ofrece un marco jurídicamente vinculante para su rechazo universal. Ningún país que se rehúse a firmarlo puede afirmar que se opone a la aniquilación nuclear.

El rey loco de Annie Jacobsen pretendía ilustrar un peligro que acecha en los márgenes del orden internacional: impredecible, irracional y armado con las armas más destructivas jamás construidas. La inquietante realidad que enfrentamos hoy es que ese peligro ya no acecha en los márgenes. Está en el centro de la mesa. Y el reloj no se detiene.

I first met David Krieger in 2012, at an international symposium on abolishing nuclear weapons held alongside the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Even before we exchanged a single word, it was clear that David approached the nuclear issue not as a strategic puzzle, but as a moral test: a question of whether humanity is willing to choose life over the machinery of destruction. We spoke in the same session, continued our discussion afterward, and later exchanged emails about his work and the activities of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. During that meeting, I also learned of his close relationship with Professor Richard Falk, whose writings and moral clarity I had followed for years. That connection made David feel immediately familiar to me — part of a circle of principled thinkers who understood that conscience, not calculation, must guide our response to the nuclear age.

While writing my recent article, Conscience in a Fractured World: The 21st Frank K. Kelly Lecture, reflecting on an activity organized by David’s own foundation, I found myself returning to that first encounter. It reminded me how naturally he embodied the values that shaped the Foundation he helped build.

David was a co-founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) and led it from 1982 to 2019. Under his leadership, the Foundation became a respected international voice for peace, international law, and the abolition of nuclear weapons. But titles and institutions only tell part of the story. What set David apart was his refusal to let the nuclear question be reduced to the language of strategy. For him, it remained what it has always been: a test of whether humanity is willing to place survival above power.

His influence extended across global civil society. He helped shape collaborative efforts such as Abolition 2000, bringing together diplomats, scientists, and advocates in a shared effort to reduce existential risk. These were not simply networks, but attempts to build coherence in a fragmented global response — to insist that the abolition of nuclear weapons is not an aspiration, but an obligation.

A prolific writer, he authored or edited more than twenty books and hundreds of articles. His works — including ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition and The Path to Zero, written with Richard Falk — did not merely argue for disarmament; they clarified it, grounding it in law, ethics, and practical pathways forward.

David received numerous international awards, yet he remained grounded in the human consequences of failure. He returned, again and again, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to communities still living with the legacy of nuclear testing. Even in declining health, colleagues recall how he would listen quietly in meetings, then offer a single observation — precise, measured, and difficult to dismiss.

Today, his legacy continues through NAPF’s work at the United Nations, its youth programs, and initiatives designed to prepare a new generation of peace leaders. But legacy, if it is to mean anything, cannot be passive.

We are living in a moment when nuclear risks are no longer abstract. Arms control agreements have weakened — from the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to the fragility of New START — the language of deterrence has hardened, and the threshold of what is considered “thinkable” has quietly shifted. In such a climate, the clarity David insisted upon is not simply admirable — it is necessary. Translated into policy, that clarity would require rejecting doctrines that legitimize nuclear use under any condition, and restoring abolition as a binding objective rather than a rhetorical horizon.

For those of us who knew him — even briefly — David Krieger remains a reminder that moral leadership is measured not by volume, but by consistency, compassion, and courage. He walked that path without compromise. The question now is whether we will rise to that test — or continue to speak of abolition while accommodating the logic that makes it impossible.

Dr. Ghassan Shahrour, Coordinator of Arab Human Security Network, is a medical doctor, prolific writer, and human rights advocate specializing in health, disability, disarmament, and human security. He has contributed to global campaigns for peace, disarmament, and the rights of persons with disabilities.

The people of the world are holding their breath for signs of responsible and diplomatic behavior on the part of elected officials, at a time when courage and integrity are in short supply. Recognizing the risks from a dysfunctional world order in the nuclear age, many have looked to Japan to provide diplomatic leadership given its unique history and pacifist constitution. This is despite the fact that the exemplary and much-needed Article 9 is clearly on life-support and has been for more than a decade.

No one understands better than the Japanese people what is ultimately at stake on a planet awash with thousands of nuclear weapons, and a U.S. president with delusions of grandeur and unfettered access to the nuclear codes. Having experienced the worst nuclear crimes – the U.S. attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and also the tragedy of Fukushima, Japan can claim neither ignorance about how badly things could go nor the certainty that nuclear war will be avoided.

To continue reading the article in The Diplomat, click here

“Holy Week” for over a billion Roman Catholics and many other Christians began on Palm Sunday, March 29. It concludes with the Easter Triduum: Holy Thursday, focused on the “Last Supper”, Good Friday, recognizing the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, and the Easter Vigil (or Holy Saturday into Easter Sunday), concluding with the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus.

This year the Triduum occurs during “Passover” (April 1 through April 9), a time when Jewish people commemorate the liberation of the ancient Israelites from their enslavement by the Egyptians, depicted in the Hebrew (Old) Testament Book of Exodus.

It’s interesting how Christianity adopted (or appropriated) so many of the Hebrew texts in the Bible. Not surprisingly, Christians come at Scripture from varying perspectives, some taking biblical text literally, others seeing it as mostly story, but with moral meaning or principles.

There is certainly inconsistency in the Bible for Christians. For example, in the Book of Exodus, God hands down the Ten Commandments (Decalogue) to the Israelite people through Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:2-17). Christians supposedly follow these biblical dictums. One is: “Thall shall not kill.” But God, in the Old Testament, kills lots of people, beginning with angrily bringing a flood upon almost all human beings in the Book of Genesis (6:9 – 9:28).

So should we be surprised that Christians have supported and/or turned a blind eye to, the mass slaughtering of people, as in waging numerous wars, carrying out the genocide of ethnic peoples (including the Jewish Holocaust), and the development and possession of nuclear weaponry that can annihilate humanity?

One could argue, however, that there is a radical divide between the Old and Christian (New) Testaments in the Bible—and this is where Jesus of Nazareth makes a difference for many Christians. For the most part, the Gospels have Jesus expressing kindness, forgiveness and nonviolence. Could there be a more humane oration than the Sermon on the Mount? (Matthew 5-7) And isn’t the Gospel of John jam packed with notions of love? It’s almost as if God had grown gentler with age in the New Testament.

Yet, many Christians prioritize the concept of Jesus dying violently for humanity’s sins, paying a necessary “ransom” to a God who causes his son to be tortured and crucified. (Mark 10:45, Timothy 2:5-6, and 1 Peter 1:18-19). In fact, there is a declaration during the Roman Catholic Holy Saturday vigil, called the “Exsultet”, proclaiming the arrival of Easter that incorporates a ransom. The Exsultet includes the liberation of “Israel’s children from slavery in Egypt”, and reads in another part as follows:

“O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!

O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!

O happy fault that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!”

Here again is a confusing image of God--one who is commonly described as almighty, but seems incapable of unconditional forgiveness.

There’s little evidence of the existence or life of Jesus of Nazareth outside the New Testament. The Biblical Archeology Society describes how a Jewish historian named Josephus, born a few years after the death of Jesus, makes a quick reference to him in a book titled, Jewish Antiquities. Josephus notes that Jesus was called a messiah, and was executed by the Romans. This might be the best indication of Jesus dying on behalf of his own people.

So I look to other, more contemporary historical figures to give me confidence that Jesus was real—and in some way the son of a loving God. There are Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who sought liberation and justice for their people, compelling them to adopt nonviolence in moving hearts and minds—and who died for their sake—following the example of Jesus.

There are also dedicated peace activists I have known personally, such as religious Sister Anne Montgomery, Jesuit Father Steve Kelly, and Catholic Worker/grandmother Susan Crane. These folks have participated in the Plowshares movement, taking to heart the calling by the prophet Isaiah (2:4) in the Old Testament to “beat swords into plowshares … and war no more”. They have gone onto military bases involved with the nuclear weaponry systems, and committed nonviolent, symbolic, civil disobedience such as hammering on missiles. They are among other folks who have gone to prison, sacrificing a major part of their lives, promoting nuclear disarmament.

And there are times when art has inspired me to seek peace and nonviolence.

I was fortunate to attend the 1964-65 World’s Fair in Queens, New York, as a young cub scout from New Jersey. This was a spectacular adventure for me. What struck me most, was the marble sculpture created by Renaissance artist Michelangelo Buonarroti in 1498-1499, the Pietà, which had been transported from St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican City of Rome, and seen by millions of people attending the fair.

The Pietà portrays Mary, the mother of Jesus, holding her murdered son, laying on her lap. I found the statue to be lifelike, and almost hypnotic. Here also were depictions of two Jews, bridging the Old and New Testaments, and two religions.

I saw the Pietà again 43 years later in St. Peter’s Basilica—its regular location, and spent some time viewing it. The statue was strikingly human: a mother holding her lifeless son, finding it hard to let him go. There was no indication of a pending resurrection, or assumption into heaven, or crowning of a heavenly king. There was just profound love, and love lost.

More recently, the Pietà has taken on a different image for me. I envision mothers holding their lifeless children in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel, Iran, Lebanon, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ukraine, Russia, Haiti, on streets in deteriorating neighborhoods of American cities, and so many other places around the world.

Every person deserves peace, security, and freedom, values that underpin international law. A lecture on humanity’s future by Princeton Professor of Law Richard Falk will support and develop this idea as he explores the United States’ current disregard for prudence, law, morality, and its complicity in Israel’s genocidal and militaristic approach not only in relation to Occupied Palestine, but also to the Middle East as a region. This talk will be the 21st Frank K. Kelly Lecture, hosted by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and presented at the Music Academy of the West at 6pm on April 7th.

Prof. Falk took time to be interviewed by VOICE Magazine, answering questions associated with his upcoming Frank K. Kelly Lecture. His responses have been edited for length.

VOICE: How have sovereignty and international law been impacted by the current attempts to justify regime change as part of a new world order?

Prof. Falk: In modern international law, as summarized in the UN Charter with respect to issues of peace and security, regime change by intervention is never legal unless authorized by the Security Council in the context of peace and security. Under normal circumstances, the UN is itself prohibited from intervention in the internal affairs of any sovereign state unless overridden by threats to international peace and security. Such a limitation was inserted in the Charter as a repudiation of the practice in the colonial era of invoking ‘humanitarian intervention’ to carry out the political agenda of European colonial powers and regional hegemons in states of the Global South.

VOICE: What is the relationship between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations?

Falk: The ICC is based on the Rome Statute that sets up the legal framework for tribunal operations, including its scope of authority, but as a treaty it is binding only on those states that agree to become Parties. This is unlike the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that is an organic part of the UN, and states by becoming Members of the UN automatically become parties to the Statute that frames ICJ undertakings. This elementary distinction is an introduction to the operation of the two tribunals, which proceed along quite different lines.

The ICC was early discredited by seeming to concentrate its activities to violations of international criminal law on the basis of judicially approved recommendations of the Prosecutor to proceed with an investigation of alleged criminality on the part exclusively of leaders in African countries. Whereas the scope of ICJ activity is to resolve legal disputes among sovereign states, the ICC addresses crimes of individuals acting on behalf of the state. Both judicial bodies are without direct enforcement capabilities, with the ICJ depending on the SC, and the ICC depending on the implementation of its criminal proceedings through the cooperation of those states that are parties to the Rome Statute, and can issue arrest warrants for accused individuals even if their nationality is of a state not party to the ICC, provided that the crimes prosecuted occurred on the territory of a party. In the highest profile case in ICC’s history, brought against top Israeli and Hamas leaders, crimes justifying the prosecution were alleged to be committed in Palestine, which despite being occupied, was considered a sovereign state. The implementation of the Arrest Warrants calling for the arrests of PM Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Gallant have not been acted upon, including by parties to the Rome Statute, leaving implementation in a grey zone of voluntary law enforcement.

Both tribunals have performed in accord with admirable professional standards of judicial practice in their several decisions since October 7, both provisionally in relation to alleged Israel violations of the Genocide Convention and as to the legality of Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian Territories (West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem) that began as a result of the outcome of the 1967 War.

VOICE:  Do you think the UN Security Council will refer recent acts of aggression by the US and Israel to the ICC? What would be the implications of this?

Falk: It is impossible to expect such a referral. We need to remember that the SC cannot act without the unanimous support of the five permanent members of the SC, three of whom are NATO members supportive of the aggression to varying degrees. And even if these governments were to be swayed by public opinion in their countries it is unrealistic to suppose that the US Government would vote in favor of such a referral.

As mentioned, the ICC is not institutionally part of the UN, and it is not clear that even if there was support from the P5 it would have any formal impact. It is possible to envision that the ICC Prosecutor might recommend to ICC judges that they authorize an investigation of the charges of aggression, and if found persuasive, that arrest warrants be issued for the respective heads of state, and possibly other officials or even officials of corporate entities. As the experience of earlier arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant illustrate, respect for ICC arrest warrants is essentially voluntary and not likely to be implemented against leading figures of powerful countries. The ICC, unlike the ICJ, can only proceed against individuals and lacks jurisdiction to take formal legal action against governments, corporations, and financial institutions.

In sum, the ICC path to accountability is not promising. More constructive avenues to achieve some kind of legal assessment might result from the formation of a civil society or peoples’ tribunal. I served as President of the Gaza Tribunal that gathered evidence, presented expert and survivor testimonies and concluded its inquiries with a strong decision by a Jury of Conscience composed of respected political, cultural, and scholarly personalities. Smaller tribunals in Canada and the UK have critically examined allegations of complicity in the furtherance of Israel’s international crimes in Gaza.

VOICE: What are the reasons why the US, Israel, and Iran are not members of the ICC?

Falk: My response is no more than a speculation based on public postures. I think the basic reason is the awareness that their respective foreign policy positions are controversial from the perspective of international criminal law. These three governments for somewhat different reasons are not prepared to subject their strategic priorities or national security to legal or criminal scrutiny.

VOICE: How has the policing power of the UN evolved and what are the future prospects of this power?

Falk: From the time the UN was established until the present, the policing or enforcement capabilities of the Organization was made dependent on decisions of the Security Council, which gives only the five winners of World War II a right of veto, as prominently used by the US and its NATO allies during the Israel assault upon Gaza, to shield Israel from censure, law enforcement, and accountability. It is again relevant to interpreting the outbreak of the present Iran War. Once again, the political organs of the UN, the SC and General Assembly, have been essentially silent in the face of aggression, and the violation of the core norm of the UN Charter, prohibiting aggressive uses of force have been so far completely neutralized. And even the GA, which lacks enforcement or accountability authority, has lacked the political will to confront outright aggression. This unlawful start of the Iran War resembles what was called at the Nuremberg trials after World War II ‘Crimes against Peace.’

VOICE: Would you share any suggestions for how our country or the individuals who read this interview should proceed to support Peace?

Falk:  Let your conscience be your guide, as shaped by a knowledge of how ‘wars of choice’ as the New York Time described the present Iran War, so far causing death, suffering, and devastation to Iran and several of its neighbors. This leads to anti-American rage among people everywhere, causing bitter divisions even here. Even the New York Times referred to the Iran War as ‘the ultimate war of choice.’ I call it an unprovoked war of aggression that is likely to make even more stressed the internal situation of multiple hardships being endured by the Iranian people, and to spread disorder throughout the region, and beyond. U.S. war making since World War II has produced few benefits and much grief and destruction. It is time to bring war under control before it dooms the future of humanity. This will only happen when enough people take action that overwhelms special interests and militarism that now shape our foreign policy.

VOICE: Are there any precedents for the kind of changed needed to move forward?

Falk:  When a situation arises where a state pursues internal and external against the will of the people, opposition in the form of nonviolent protest initiatives often can achieve goals related to peace and justice. This happened in the U.S. at the latter stages of the Vietnam War. Finally exerting enough pressure to produce a transition to peace for this country and an era of reconstruction for Vietnam. Another example is the surprising success of the anti-apartheid movement that was aided by nonviolent solidarity movements around the world including cultural and sports boycotts, divestment campaigns, and alienation in international relations. The weight of these pressures brought an unexpected change of policy by the ruling South African white leadership that brought racism to an end, and a transition to a constitutional democracy, while far from perfect, is an inspiring improvement over apartheid or a bloody race war. Such a possibility exists for the American people at this time to end its participation in the Iran War, and at the same time adjust its relationship with Israel by reference to law and justice. Although we can know the future, we can know and act to achieve a future that will be shaped by values rather than by the strategic calculations of unaccountable bureaucrats. As many moral giants of our world have insisted upon we must dedicate themselves to ‘peace by peaceful means’ and not take refuge by silently crouching beneath the weight of state propaganda.

Click Here to Read this week’s Magazine

The 21st Frank K Kelly Lecture will take place at the Music Academy of the West, on April 7th at 6pm. 

Admission is free with a RSVP.  Sponsorships are available.  For info, to sponsor, and to RSVP visit HERE.

Professor Richard Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2023. He has served as Chair of Global Law, Faculty of Law, at Queen Mary University, London and co-Director of its Centre of Environmental Justice and Crime; Research Associate at the Orfalea Center of Global Studies at the UC Santa Barbara; and Fellow of the Tellus Institute. He directed the project on Global Climate Change, Human Security, and Democracy at UCSB and formerly was the director of the North American group in the World Order Models Project. Between 2008 and 2014, Falk served as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories. Falk is the author or editor of more than 75 books. In 2022, Professor Falk authored Protecting Human Rights in Occupied Palestine: Working Through the United Nations in collaboration with John Dugard and Michael Lynk. He is Senior Vice President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

That the U.S. is awash in hypocrisy and mendacity should come as no surprise to the people of the world who have watched the U.S. launch one war and/or regime change operation after another over the past 80 years. As former president Jimmy Carter acknowledged in 2019, after receiving a phone call from Donald Trump bemoaning the rise of the China century, he (Carter) didn’t fear the Chinese who hadn’t been at war since 1979; it was the U.S. that had constantly been at war. The late president calculated that the U.S. had only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its then 242 year-long existence, making it “the most warlike nation in the history of the world.”

But that dismal record has not deterred the U.S. from touting its moral superiority and lecturing other countries about the need to adhere to the so-called “rules-based international order” that the U.S. created but refuses to follow when its own “interests” are at stake. Former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson demonstrated this hubris best following the post-WWI settlement conference at Versailles when he said, “at last the world knows the United States as the savior of the world.” That smug refrain—the bloated and blind self-righteousness captured in the notion of “American exceptionalism,” the idea that the United States is not only different than all other nations, it is better than all other nations—has been echoed repeatedly by American leaders who believe it entitles them to use whatever means are necessary to maintain global hegemony. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, not long after justifying the killing of a half million Iraqi children via U.S. sanctions, “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.”

With leaders like Wilson, Truman, the Dulles brothers, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Reagan, George W. Bush, the Clintons (especially Hillary), Albright, and Biden, the U.S. has long deserved the Nobel Prize for hypocrisy. Now with Trump back in office, U.S. hypocrisy and mendacity have both risen to truly unprecedented levels.

But to make matters worse, in west Asia, the U.S. has joined Bibi Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing advisors in a war of choice based, like so many previous U.S. wars, on blatant lies about the imminent threat posed, in this case, by Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs—lies that had been thoroughly debunked by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.S. intelligence community. That the U.S., with more than 5000 nuclear weapons and a unique responsibility for the nuclear age and some of its worst crimes, and Israel, with 90 nuclear warheads or more, an arsenal considered to be “undeclared,” feel justified in leveling much of Iran on the fabricated pretext that Iran might have the propensity to develop nuclear weapons takes hypocrisy and impunity to an entirely new level.

The C.I.A. has reported that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. That same year, Ayatollah Khamenei first issued his fatwa against Iran ever developing or attaining a nuclear weapon—a ban that was in place prior to this and last year’s attacks on Iran. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the Iran nuclear deal, which Obama painfully negotiated in 2015 with the help of Russia and other countries, Iran was to keep its uranium enrichment to 3.67%, far below the levels needed to develop a nuclear weapon, for 15 years. Following the deal, Iran was being subjected to the most intensive inspection regime ever instituted, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But Trump walked away from the JCPOA in 2018, setting the stage for the violent confrontations that have marked his second administration.

Last June, the U.S. and Israel subjected Iran to a 12-day bombing campaign that Trump claimed had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. Now the U.S. and Israel are again bombing Iran even more mercilessly. Gone are the days of targeting mainly the nuclear sites, which had risked a catastrophe of a different proportion. Such “strategic” sites have now been replaced by a girls’ school, at least 13 hospitals, a sports complex, and many other civilian targets.

Israel had done everything it could to stop the U.S. from signing the JCPOA in the first place and encouraged Trump to withdraw from the agreement during his first term. Now Netanyahu finally helped drag the U.S. into a war with Iran—something Netanyahu has been attempting to do for decades—but other U.S. presidents had the good sense to resist. Netanyahu is the one who has been warning that Iran was “weeks” away from a nuclear weapon on a regular basis since the 1990s. Trump and Netanyahu began their bombing campaign despite the fact that the Oman foreign minister declared that the two sides had made “significant progress” and were very close to a deal. According to Minister al-Busaidi, Iran would have agreed to get rid of its highly enriched uranium that could potentially be used for a weapon and roll back all other potentially threatening aspects of its research program. Trump and Netanyahu, thinking a military victory would showcase their ferocity more than a diplomatic one, opted to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and unleashed this immoral, illegal, and absolutely unnecessary war.

No one, and especially those who like us, have advocated for nuclear disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons, should want to see Iran develop its own nuclear arsenal. But no one should be surprised if Iranian leaders believe that this would be their only credible means of defense against another invasion. Clearly, after being bombed twice within eight months when they were in the midst of seemingly productive negotiations, the Iranians have little appetite for being sucker-punched a third time. But given the stakes and the global risks from further escalation on top of the damage already being done, a diplomatic solution must be imposed upon all parties.

This should happen immediately. If the U.S. and Israeli regimes learn that the use of force under phony pretenses turns them into universally despised pariah states, so much the better. If the Iranian regime gives up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, the world will cheer.

But we must all agree that in the nuclear age, war is not an option. We must reembrace diplomacy and find a path toward peaceful development that will serve the interests of not just those involved, but all of humanity. As wise statesmen have said, human beings created these survival-threatening crises; human beings can also choose to live together and resolve differences peacefully. If we can imagine such a world, we can create it.

Ivana Nikolić Hughes is the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Senior Chemist at Columbia University, and a member of the Scientific Advisory Group of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Peter Kuznik is Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Nuclear Studies at the American University in Washington, D.C. He is the co-author (along with Oliver Stone) for the book The Untold History of the United States.

On March 19, Ivana Nikolic Hughes, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Senior Lecturer at Columbia University, joined TRT World, Turkey’s public broadcast service, to discuss whether the US and Israel’s strikes on Iran were truly justified by the threat of a nuclear weapon, what the IAEA’s findings actually show, and what comes next for the region. Watch below.

On March 15, 2026, Dr. Ivana Nikolić Hughes moderated a webinar organized by Serving Humanity and Planet Earth (SHAPE), bringing together leading scholars and analysts to examine escalating global conflicts and their implications for peace and security.

The discussion featured Professor Richard Falk, Professor Chandra Muzaffar, and Professor Joseph Camilleri as primary speakers, with responses from Helena Cobban and Biljana Vankovska. Together, they explored the underlying drivers of current global tensions, including shifting power dynamics, the role of militarism, and the increasing risks of large-scale and potentially nuclear conflict.

The conversation addressed developments in the Middle East and broader geopolitical trends, highlighting the erosion of international cooperation and the urgency of renewed engagement with diplomacy and global governance.

SHAPE convened the webinar as part of its ongoing work to examine the risks of confrontation in the nuclear age and to advance dialogue on pathways toward a more just and sustainable future.

On March 10, Dr. Ivana Hughes from Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Columbia University joined the Camp Gagnon podcast to discuss the serious threat of nuclear war, what the fallout effects would be, and other interesting topics. Watch the full interview with Camp Gagnon.

TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 Intro
1:51 Nuclear Fallout Effects + Nuclear Winter
24:00 Power Behind Nuclear Explosions
36:13 World Without Nukes + Theory of Nukes
52:19 Fear of Nuclear Threat
57:29 Close Calls of Nuclear Destruction
1:10:04 Politics In Nuclear Decisions
1:25:01 Disarming Iran’s Nuclear Arsenal
1:38:18 Andromeda Galaxy Time Dilation
1:40:26 UFO’s & Nukes
1:43:30 Economics of Nuclear Threat
1:51:13 Future Hope

(Desplácese hacia abajo para español / Scroll to end for Spanish)

Iran’s squares are once again filling with crowds. But this time, they are not protesting against the ruthless regime that has brutally repressed its own population; they are taking to the streets to support the government in the face of the military offensive by the United States and Israel.

What we are witnessing is neither a surgical operation nor a rational strategy. There are no clear objectives —at least not publicly. It is a war with no plan, no horizon, and no brakes. In Washington, the justifications change like a daily special: “regime change,” “preventive strike,” “neutralizing a nuclear threat.” Diplomacy —the tool that keeps the world from burning— has been replaced by impulses, maximalism, and a dangerous blend of ideology and faith. It’s no longer one week, but eight. The timeline keeps expanding, and no one speaks about “the day after.”

A clash of sacred narratives

Adding to this strategic disorientation is an unsettling ideological engine: religious fanaticism framing the conflict as a “holy war.” When everyone believes they have a divine mandate and the “other” is the embodiment of evil, there is no room for restraint.

In the United States, influential Evangelical sectors have spent decades promoting a theological vision in which Israel is the stage for the “end times.” For these groups, military support for Israel is not a strategic decision —it is a religious obligation. This worldview has shaped speeches, votes, and foreign policy decisions. There have even been reports of high‑ranking military officials interpreting bombings through the Book of Revelation, as steps toward Armageddon and the return of Jesus Christ. In this narrative, Iran ceases to be a state with interests and contradictions; it becomes an apocalyptic enemy.

In Israel, the government has intensified the use of biblical references to justify the offensive. Netanyahu has compared Iran to the Amalekites, an ancestral enemy described as the embodiment of evil, turning this conflict into an existential struggle. Moreover, part of the governing coalition is composed of ultranationalist and religious parties that see the war as an opportunity to reaffirm a project based on territorial expansion and ethno‑religious identity. In this context, moderation is weakness.

In Iran, the assassination of the Supreme Leader has activated a deeply rooted Shiite imaginary centered on martyrdom. Instead of weakening the repressive regime, it has mobilized millions to defend it without fear of death —a response many frame as a “defensive jihad.”

And in the middle of all this… nuclear weapons

This is where the conflict becomes truly dangerous.

Two nuclear‑armed countries are attacking one that does not possess such weapons. The reckless bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities shows a disturbing disregard for the possibility of a radiological disaster. If the conflict draws in other nuclear‑armed states, the crisis could escalate into a genuine “nuclear Armageddon.”

The architecture of international law —designed precisely to prevent scenarios like this— is being ignored. The “law of the jungle” is becoming normalized. And when the jungle rules, nuclear weapons become the final word.

We need to stop this spiral

Amid this growing anarchy, Spain has emerged as the only Western government openly condemning the war against Iran. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has denied the United States access to joint military bases, arguing that “you cannot respond to one illegality with another.” While Spain rejects the Iranian regime’s repression, it also rejects the path of bombs and demands an immediate ceasefire. This is not about choosing sides in a clash of fanaticisms, but about defending international law and peaceful resolution.

The TPNW is our red line

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is not a moral luxury. It is an urgent necessity.
The TPNW:

• declares the most destructive weapons ever created illegitimate

• pressures nuclear‑armed states

• provides a framework for dismantling arsenals

• breaks with the suicidal logic of deterrence

It is not symbolic. It is a real way out of the dead end created by fanaticism, religious nationalism, and runaway geopolitics.

History is not written. Preventing a nuclear disaster requires action, public pressure, real diplomacy, and a global commitment to the TPNW. There is still time.

Las plazas de Irán vuelven a llenarse de multitudes. Pero esta vez no protestan contra el despiadado régimen que ha reprimido brutalmente a su propia población; salen a las calles para apoyar al gobierno frente a la ofensiva militar de Estados Unidos e Israel.

Lo que vemos no es una operación quirúrgica ni una estrategia racional. No hay objetivos claros (al menos no públicamente). Es una guerra sin plan, sin horizonte y sin frenos. En Washington, las justificaciones cambian como el menú del día: “cambio de régimen”, “ataque preventivo”, “neutralizar una amenaza nuclear”. La diplomacia —la herramienta que evita que el mundo se incendie— ha sido sustituida por impulsos, maximalismo y una peligrosa mezcla de ideología y fe. Ya no es una semana, sino 8. El marco temporal se expande y nadie habla del “día después”.

Choque de relatos sagrados

A esta desorientación estratégica se suma un motor ideológico inquietante: el fanatismo religioso que enmarca el conflicto como una “guerra santa”. Cuando todos creen tener un mandato divino y el “otro” es el agente del mal, no hay espacio para la contención.

En Estados Unidos, sectores influyentes del cristianismo evangélico llevan décadas promoviendo una visión teológica donde Israel es el escenario del “fin de los tiempos”. Para estos grupos, apoyar militarmente a Israel no es una decisión estratégica: es un mandato religioso. Esta visión ha influido en discursos, votaciones y decisiones de política exterior. Incluso han surgido denuncias de altos mandos militares interpretando los bombardeos a través del Libro del Apocalipsis, como pasos hacia el Armagedón y el retorno de Jesucristo. En esta narrativa, Irán deja de ser un Estado con intereses y contradicciones: se convierte en un enemigo apocalíptico.

En Israel, el gobierno ha intensificado el uso de citas bíblicas para justificar la ofensiva. Netanyahu ha comparado a Irán con los amalecitas, un enemigo ancestral descrito como la encarnación del mal, lo que convierte este conflicto en una lucha existencial. Además, parte de la coalición gobernante está formada por partidos ultranacionalistas y religiosos que ven la guerra como una oportunidad para reafirmar un proyecto basado en la expansión territorial y en la identidad étnico-religiosa. La moderación, en este contexto, es una debilidad.

En Irán, el asesinato del líder supremo ha activado un imaginario religioso profundamente arraigado en el martirio chiita, que, en vez de quitarle el apoyo al represivo régimen, ha movilizado a millones de personas a defenderlo, sin temor a la muerte, algo que podría enmarcarse como una “yihad defensiva”.

En medio de todo esto… armas nucleares

Aquí es donde el conflicto se vuelve realmente peligroso.

Dos países armados con armas nucleares están atacando a uno que no las posee. El irresponsable bombardeo de las estructuras nucleares iraníes muestra una despreocupación por un posible eventual desastre radiactivo. Si el conflicto arrastra a otros países nuclearmente armados, la crisis podría escalar hacia un verdadero “Armagedón nuclear”.

La arquitectura del derecho internacional, diseñada para evitar exactamente este tipo de escenarios, está siendo ignorada. La “ley de la selva” se normaliza. Y cuando manda la selva, las armas nucleares se convierten en la última palabra.

Necesitamos frenar esta espiral

En medio de esta creciente anarquía, España se ha convertido en el bastión occidental que ha condenado abiertamente la guerra contra Irán. El presidente Pedro Sánchez ha denegado a Estados Unidos el uso de bases conjuntas, defendiendo que “no se puede responder a una ilegalidad con otra”. Aunque España rechaza la represión del régimen iraní, también rechaza la vía de las bombas y exige un alto el fuego inmediato. No se trata de elegir bandos en un conflicto de fanatismos, sino de defender la legalidad internacional y la resolución pacífica.

El TPAN es nuestra línea roja

El Tratado sobre la Prohibición de las Armas Nucleares (TPAN) no es un lujo moral. Es una necesidad urgente.
El TPAN:

• declara ilegítimas las armas más destructivas jamás creadas

• presiona a los Estados poseedores

• ofrece un marco para desmantelar arsenales

• rompe con la lógica suicida de la disuasión

No es simbólico. Es una salida real del callejón sin salida al que nos empujan el fanatismo, el nacionalismo religioso y la geopolítica sin control.

La historia no está escrita. Evitar un desastre nuclear requiere acción, presión pública, diplomacia real y un compromiso global con el TPAN. Estamos a tiempo.

President Trump has been on quite a roll. Since just the beginning of the year, he has kidnapped the Venezuela president, threatened to invade Greenland and Colombia, and has in just the last week dragged the U.S.—and seemingly much of the Middle East—into a new war by joining with Israel to attack Iran, something that even the biggest hawks among recent U.S. presidents have managed to avoid. That’s on top of bombing seven countries in 2025.

The 2024 campaign promises of a peace president who will end the forever wars have evaporated, only to be replaced by unrestrained use of military force and a seeming disdain for diplomacy. As the U.S. comedy show Saturday Night Live put it, Trump, along with his UN-replacing Board of Peace, got “bored of peace.”

Breaking international law seems to be a feature, and not a bug, of Trump’s actions, consistent with his admission that he is expressly not guided by international law, norms, traditions, or common decency, but by “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Trump’s power-drunk top advisors are just as out of control. Secretary of War Pete “kill them all” Hegseth stated that his goal is to “unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy” and to “untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country.” At the Munich Security Conference, Secretary of State “little Marco” Rubio bemoaned the end of the era of colonialism and called for returning to “the West’s age of dominance.” Deputy chief of staff Stephen “Genghis” Miller declared, “We live in a world…that is governed by force, that is governed by power.”

In addition to hegemonic actions in the conventional military realm, Trump has been escalating when it comes to nuclear weapons. He rejected President Putin’s invitation to extend the New START treaty for another year, making possible an unconstrained nuclear arms race alongside an ongoing modernization race. He has also announced that the U.S. will resume nuclear testing. Even without the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and tensions with China, these actions and threats would be destabilizing and dangerous.

Trump is the mean and out-of-control bully on the global playground. Except that this bully has the sole authority to launch thousands of nuclear warheads.

It would be the ultimate expression of Trump’s unbounded power for him to break the one remaining international taboo—which, despite far too many close calls, has persisted for more than 80 years—detonating a nuclear weapon. There are many indications that, despite the U.S. and Israel’s ability to bomb Iran at will, this war may not be going well for them. But that need not be the pretext for using a nuclear weapon. In Trump’s mind, the more unprovoked, outrageous, and unnecessary something is, the better. Given his fragile ego and rapidly deteriorating mental powers—going off on bizarre rants about poisonous snakes in Peru or the White House drapes—the more unhinged he is, the more he thinks it demonstrates his dominance.

Since the end of the Cold War, many people who pay attention have worried about an accidental or a miscalculated stumble into nuclear war. But with Trump breaking every taboo domestically and internationally, demonstrating that he is above the law and can do as he pleases at every turn, the ultimate taboo waiting to be broken is the nuclear one. This may in fact be part of the reason why Presidents Putin and Xi have muted their response to the attacks on Iran. They know how dangerous Trump is and they don’t want to provoke him.

There are now reports from Air Force veteran Mikey Weinstein, the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, that his organization has received calls from more than 200 soldiers on over 50 military bases, that “have one damn thing in freaking common…the unrestricted euphoria of their commanders and command chains as to how this new ‘biblically-sanctioned’ war is clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian ‘end times’ as vividly described in the New Testament book of Revelation.” The commander of one combat unit told non-commissioned officers “that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that President Donald Trump was ‘anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.’”

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard warned in June that we were “closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.” We might be a lot closer than even she realized.

Ivana Nikolić Hughes is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a Senior Lecturer in Chemistry at Columbia University. She is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group to the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Peter Kuznick is Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington, D.C. He is the author of numerous books and co-author (with Oliver Stone) of The Untold History of the United States.

(Desplácese hacia abajo para español / Scroll to end for Spanish)

We are living through a critical moment. The recent attack on Iran not only aggravates instability in the Middle East but also reminds us once again of an uncomfortable truth: war never offers sustainable solutions. Every military escalation opens a cycle of violence that always falls upon the most vulnerable and those who bear the least responsibility. This illegal war, driven by interests—much like other similar conflicts in recent history—ignores the essential question: ‘What happens the day after?’ Therefore, from an ethical, humanitarian, and global security perspective, it is imperative to be forceful in rejecting this drift toward war.

In this context, the Spanish Government’s decision to deny the United States the use of the Rota and Morón bases for its attacks against Iran constitutes a political gesture of enormous relevance. By demanding strict respect for the United Nations Charter and international law, Spain is demonstrating that coherence between discourse, principles, and action is not only possible but necessary. And now, perhaps, more necessary than ever.

France’s nuclearist drift: a threat to multilateralism

While Spain reinforces its commitment to international legality, France is moving in the opposite direction. President Emmanuel Macron has announced an increase in the French nuclear arsenal and the temporary deployment of nuclear-capable aircraft to eight European countries under a strategy of ‘advanced deterrence.’ His assertion that ‘to be free, one must be feared’ manifests a deeply problematic worldview.

This logic of fear and intimidation is not only dangerous; it is incompatible with multilateralism, the rule of law, and human security. French doctrine even contemplates the possibility of a ‘warning nuclear strike‘ if an aggressor misinterprets its vital interests. That is to say, breaking the nuclear taboo and explicitly using the nuclear threat as a pedagogical mechanism—no longer just against a nuclear attack, but against a conventional one. Essentially, if nuclear deterrence fails and France is attacked, it would resort to a nuclear strike to ‘restore deterrence.’

Nuclear deterrence rests on a grim premise: that human nature is intrinsically violent and that only the possibility of mass destruction prevents conflict. History, however, proves the contrary. Extreme militarization does not generate stability, but rather distrust, escalation, and ultimately, war. Far from protecting the world, nuclear weapons have poisoned international relations and emboldened aggressions under the umbrella of impunity.

Spain and ‘Moral Rearmament’: A Necessary Alternative

Opposing this vision, Spain is articulating a different path—one based on preventive diplomacy, the strengthening of international law, and cooperation for peace. At the Munich Security Conference, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez explicitly rejected nuclear deterrence, describing it as a costly, risky strategy that is ultimately incompatible with a modern notion of security. ‘It is not a guarantee,’ he warned, ‘it is a gamble.’

His proposal for ‘moral rearmament‘ is not empty rhetoric. It is an invitation to redefine security through empathy, shared humanity, and institutional strength. It is not enough to denounce the risks of nuclear weapons; it is also necessary to question the logic that justifies them.

The Decisive Step: Signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

If Spain wants to consolidate this ethical and political leadership, it must take the remaining step: adhere to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), as 99 countries have already done.

The TPNW is a legal and moral tool seeking a normative change: it allows for the stigmatization of nuclear weapons, stripping them of prestige and moving toward their abolition, just as occurred with chemical and biological weapons, or even slavery. Signing it would align Spanish security policy with its democratic values and its declared commitment to multilateralism.

A Beacon in Times of Existential Risk

The Doomsday Clock now stands at 85 seconds to midnight—the highest risk of human annihilation in history. In this scenario, Spain can—and must—become an international benchmark. Not because it is a military power, but because it can demonstrate that peace and freedom are not sustained by fear, as France declares, but by justice, cooperation, and humanity.

The opportunity is on the table. The question is whether we will have the political and moral courage to seize it.”

Vivimos un momento crítico. El reciente ataque a Irán no solo agrava la inestabilidad en Oriente Próximo, sino que vuelve a recordarnos una verdad incómoda: la guerra nunca ofrece soluciones sostenibles. Cada escalada militar abre un ciclo de violencia que siempre recae sobre los más vulnerables y quienes menos responsabilidad tienen. Esta guerra ilegal, por intereses, al igual que otros conflictos similares en la historia reciente, obvia la pregunta esencial: ¿qué ocurre al día siguiente?. Por eso, desde una perspectiva ética, humanitaria y de seguridad global, es imprescindible ser contundentes en el rechazo de esta deriva bélica.

En este contexto, la decisión del Gobierno de España de denegar a Estados Unidos el uso de las bases de Rota y Morón para sus ataques contra Irán constituye un gesto político de enorme relevancia. Al exigir el respeto estricto de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y del derecho internacional, España está demostrando que la coherencia entre discurso, principios y acción no solo es posible, sino necesaria. Y ahora, quizás, más necesaria que nunca.

La deriva nuclearista de Francia: una amenaza para el multilateralismo

Mientras España refuerza su compromiso con la legalidad internacional, Francia avanza en la dirección opuesta. El presidente Emmanuel Macron ha anunciado un aumento del arsenal nuclear francés y el despliegue temporal de aviones con capacidad nuclear en ocho países europeos, bajo una estrategia de “disuasión avanzada”. Su afirmación de que “para ser libres, hay que ser temidos” manifiesta una visión del mundo profundamente problemática.

Esta lógica del miedo y la intimidación no solo es peligrosa: es incompatible con el multilateralismo, el Estado de derecho y la seguridad humana. La doctrina francesa contempla incluso la posibilidad de un “ataque nuclear de advertencia” si un agresor malinterpreta sus intereses vitales. Es decir, romper el tabú nuclear y, de forma expresa, usar la amenaza nuclear como mecanismo pedagógico, ya no contra un ataque nuclear, sino contra uno convencional. Es decir, si la disuasión nuclear fracasa y es atacada, Francia recurriría a un ataque nuclear para “restablecer la disuasión”.

La disuasión nuclear se sustenta en una premisa sombría: que la naturaleza humana es intrínsecamente violenta y que solo la posibilidad de una destrucción masiva evita los conflictos. La historia, sin embargo, demuestra lo contrario. La militarización extrema no genera estabilidad, sino desconfianza, escalada y, finalmente, guerra. Lejos de proteger al mundo, las armas nucleares han envenenado las relaciones internacionales y envalentonado agresiones bajo el paraguas de la impunidad.

España y el “rearme moral”: una alternativa necesaria

Frente a esta visión, España está trazando un camino distinto. Un camino basado en la diplomacia preventiva, el fortalecimiento del derecho internacional y la cooperación para la paz. En la Conferencia de Seguridad de Múnich, el presidente Pedro Sánchez rechazó explícitamente la disuasión nuclear, calificándola de estrategia costosa, arriesgada y, en última instancia, incompatible con una noción moderna de seguridad. “No es una garantía—advirtió— sino una ruleta”.

Su propuesta de un “rearme moral” no es retórica vacía. Es una invitación a redefinir la seguridad desde la empatía, la humanidad compartida y la fortaleza institucional. No basta con denunciar los riesgos de las armas nucleares; es necesario cuestionar también la lógica que las justifica.

El paso decisivo: la firma del Tratado sobre la Prohibición de las Armas Nucleares

Si España quiere consolidar este liderazgo ético y político, debe dar el paso que falta: adherirse al Tratado sobre la Prohibición de las Armas Nucleares (TPAN), como ya lo han hecho 99 países.

El TPAN es una herramienta legal y moral que busca un cambio normativo: permite estigmatizar las armas nucleares, despojarlas de prestigio y avanzar hacia su abolición, tal como ocurrió con las armas químicas y biológicas, o incluso con la esclavitud. Firmarlo alinearía la política de seguridad española con sus valores democráticos y con su compromiso declarado con el multilateralismo.

Un faro en tiempos de riesgo existencial

El Reloj del Apocalipsis marca hoy 85 segundos hasta la medianoche, el mayor riesgo de aniquilación humana de la historia. En este escenario, España puede —y debe— convertirse en un referente internacional. No porque sea una potencia militar, sino porque puede demostrar que la paz y la libertad no se sostienen en el miedo, como lo declara Francia, sino en la justicia, la cooperación y la humanidad.

La oportunidad está sobre la mesa. La pregunta es si tendremos el coraje político y moral para aprovecharla.