Ignoring Diplomacy Pushes the World Closer to Nuclear Catastrophe

The specter of nuclear catastrophe looms larger than it has in decades. As the United States prepares to lead its delegation to the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York, the stakes could not be higher. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a linchpin of global security since 1970, faces unprecedented strain. States like Iran and North Korea edge closer to unchecked nuclear capabilities, while great powers modernize their arsenals at a staggering cost. The path forward demands unwavering commitment to diplomacy, a principle too often sidelined in favor of posturing and provocation.

This moment feels like a reckoning. The NPT, designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament, and ensure peaceful nuclear energy, is faltering under the weight of geopolitical mistrust. The United States, as a nuclear superpower and a treaty architect, bears unique responsibility to steer the world away from the brink. Yet, voices advocating for unchecked military dominance and unilateral action threaten to unravel decades of progress. Their vision, rooted in the belief that overwhelming force alone secures peace, ignores the catastrophic risks of escalation and miscalculation.

The urgency is palpable. Iran’s uranium enrichment has surged since the U.S. abandoned the 2015 nuclear deal, bringing it perilously close to weapons-grade material. North Korea, emboldened by its growing arsenal and ties to Russia, openly flouts international norms. Meanwhile, the U.S. is projected to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade modernizing its nuclear triad, a move that fuels a global arms race rather than defusing tensions. These are not abstract threats; they are tangible dangers that could reshape life as we know it.

Advocates for multilateral cooperation see the NPT as a beacon of hope, a framework that has curbed proliferation and fostered dialogue. But hope alone won’t suffice. The U.S. delegation, led by Paul Watzlavick, must champion bold, pragmatic steps to strengthen the treaty’s three pillars: nonproliferation, disarmament, and peaceful nuclear energy. Anything less risks ceding the future to those who believe might makes right.

Iran and North Korea exemplify the perils of diplomatic failure. Since the U.S. withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, Iran has amassed uranium stockpiles that could enable a rapid sprint to a nuclear weapon. Its advanced centrifuges and reduced cooperation with international inspectors have eroded trust, raising the specter of regional conflict. North Korea, having conducted six nuclear tests and developed missiles capable of striking the U.S., now postures as a de facto nuclear state, demanding concessions while deepening alliances with authoritarian powers. These developments didn’t emerge in a vacuum; they stem from inconsistent policies and missed opportunities for engagement.

Some argue that deterrence through overwhelming force is the answer. They point to plans for expanding U.S. nuclear warheads, deploying road-mobile missiles, and even resuming nuclear testing as necessary to counter these threats. But this approach is a mirage. Pouring billions into new weapons while abandoning arms control only emboldens adversaries to match or exceed our capabilities. Russia’s suspension of the New START treaty and China’s projected arsenal growth to over 1,000 warheads by 2030 underscore the futility of this cycle. Far from securing safety, it heightens the risk of catastrophic miscalculation.

The NPT offers a better path. Its framework has constrained proliferation for over half a century, enabling successes like South Africa’s voluntary disarmament. By strengthening verification measures and restoring diplomatic channels, the U.S. can address Iran’s and North Korea’s programs without resorting to brinkmanship. Critics of multilateralism claim it ties our hands, but history shows that cooperation, not confrontation, yields lasting security.

The economic and human toll of nuclear escalation cannot be overstated. The Congressional Budget Office estimates U.S. nuclear modernization will cost $946 billion by 2034, diverting resources from healthcare, education, and climate initiatives. Beyond dollars, the humanitarian consequences of nuclear conflict—millions dead, ecosystems ravaged—demand that we prioritize prevention over preparation. Diplomacy, though imperfect, remains our most potent tool.

The 2026 NPT Review Conference looms as a pivotal moment. Past conferences have stumbled, with deep divisions over disarmament stalling progress. Non-nuclear states, frustrated by the slow pace of Article VI commitments, increasingly question the treaty’s fairness. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, supported by 93 nations, reflects their impatience, challenging the legitimacy of nuclear deterrence itself. The U.S. must engage these voices, not dismiss them, to rebuild trust and momentum.

This requires rejecting the siren call of unilateralism. Plans to expand U.S. nuclear capabilities, as outlined in recent policy proposals, undermine the NPT’s disarmament pillar and alienate allies. Instead, the U.S. should lead by example, pursuing verifiable reductions in its arsenal and advocating for a successor to New START before its 2026 expiration. Such steps would signal to the world that security lies in cooperation, not competition.

Geopolitical tensions, from Russia’s aggression in Ukraine to China’s military ambitions, complicate this work. Yet, history proves diplomacy can prevail even in fraught times. The Cold War saw U.S.-Soviet arms reductions despite mutual distrust, slashing global arsenals and averting disaster. Today, confidence-building measures, like enhanced transparency and risk reduction protocols, can pave the way for broader agreements. The alternative—an unchecked arms race—benefits no one.

The U.S. delegation must also address regional flashpoints. Supporting a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, a longstanding NPT goal, could ease tensions over Iran’s program and Israel’s undeclared arsenal. Engaging North Korea through incremental steps, like humanitarian aid tied to verification, could open doors to dialogue. These efforts demand patience and political will, qualities that have too often been in short supply.

At its core, the fight for a stronger NPT is a moral one. Nuclear weapons, by their very existence, threaten humanity’s survival. The U.S., with its unparalleled influence, has a duty to lead not just with power but with principle. Advocates for disarmament argue that these weapons’ catastrophic potential—evidenced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki—demands their elimination. This vision, rooted in reason and humanity, aligns with the NPT’s promise of a world free from nuclear fear.

As the New York meeting unfolds, the world will be watching. Will the U.S. double down on a costly, destabilizing arms race, or will it seize this chance to renew global cooperation? The answer will shape not just the NPT’s future but the legacy we leave for generations to come. Diplomacy, imperfect as it is, remains our best hope to prevent the unthinkable. It’s time to act with the urgency this moment demands.