From 27 April to 22 May, the United Nations hosts the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in New York. Originally adopted in 1968, the NPT became international law in 1970.
The treaty was intended to avoid horizontal nuclear proliferation, to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to contribute to nuclear disarmament between the countries recognized as nuclear powers by the treaty at the time of its birth. This is why the NPT recognizes only the United States, the Russian Federation -which inherited the USSR’s nuclear arsenal after its dissolution-, the People’s Republic of China, the United Kingdom and France- as nuclear weapons since they were the only countries that possessed nuclear arsenals. Israel became a nuclear power sometime in the 60’s; India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974; Pakistan followed in 1998 and, more recently, North Korea also became a nuclear power.
The NPT is the most ratified agreement on disarmament ever, with 190 parties. Only North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty to pursue its own nuclear program since 2003. The other mentioned countries, India, Pakistan, and Israel are not parties to the NPT either.
After its 25th anniversary in 1995 it was determined that the NPT would be extended indefinitely and that review conferences would be conducted every five years since. Starting in 2000, when an agreement on 13 practical steps for the systematic and progressive disarmament of the world's nuclear weapons was reached, it had been almost a tradition that after a successful review conference comes another where consensus is not reached. Thus, at the 2005 review conference, with the George W. Bush administration war on terrorism and his wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the scenario did not favor an agreement. The fact that North Korea decided to denounce the treaty added to skepticism over nuclear nonproliferation. Then came the Obama Administration and in 2010 state parties adopted a 64-point action plan in order to move forward. However, their fulfillment of this action plan, in particular the disarmament requirements, is so far significantly lacking.
Some contentious issues created tensions prior to the review conference, such as the 2009 revelation that Iran had built another secret nuclear site - apart from Natanz and Arak. The Fordow site was buried deep within a mountain that protected it from attack. Obama said at the time that the Fordow configuration was “inconsistent” with a peaceful nuclear program. It was believed these facilities could produce enough material for a nuclear weapon in less than a week. Then in June 2010, once the review conference had come to a successful end, a malicious computer worm known as “Stuxnet” —sometimes described as “the world’s first cyberweapon” infected the Natanz underground nuclear enrichment site, destroying about 1,000 centrifuges. The worm infected at least 14 industrial plants in Iran. The complexity of the attack and press leaks led many to suspect that US and Israeli intelligence agencies launched the worm. That way a
By 2013, with a more moderate Iranian government in power, the country started negotiations with the US and other countries under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and Teheran accepted greater international monitoring of its nuclear facilities. The JCPOA was endorsed by the US, UK, France, PR China, Russia, plus Germany. The plan included Iranian pledge to not develop weapons-grade nuclear material, in exchange for sanctions relief for Iran’s economy.
A proposal to create a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East had been under discussion after the 2010 NPT review conference. This agreement implied Israel coming out and accepting it possesses nuclear weapons, which Tel Aviv has never recognized. This, and the fact that Israel denounced the Iranian deal as legitimizing Teheran’s nuclear program led prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to argue that there were no conditions to advance a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East. And thus, the 2015 NPT review conference could not reach a consensus.
Then came the COVID-19 pandemic and the Donald Trump Administration in the US, whose first actions included moving the US Embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem despite enormous criticism from the international community. And then pulled the United States out of the Iran deal. “This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” he said at the time, reimposing heavy sanctions on Iran. Of course, Iran, without the relief provided under the JCPOA restarted some nuclear operations, including developing more low-enriched uranium, which can be used for nuclear power, than the agreement had allowed and restarting stalled activities—like enriching uranium beyond medical grade at the once-secret Fordow facility. This context did not favor the review conference that took place until 1-26 August 2022 after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and then, again, a final consensus declaration was not reached mainly due to Russian objections to the text.
The hopes for the current NPT review conference are low for various reasons. To start with, nuclear disarmament is not very popular these days. Although Donald Trump was optimistic when his new term started about reaching an agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, pressures from Israel to attack Teheran were escalating. Trump wanted Iran to participate at a regional Middle East nuclear consortium that would supply fuel for nuclear power reactors. The consortium would have taken control of Iranian enrichment capabilities, meaning Iran would no longer be able to undertake a step that is critical to both nuclear power and nuclear weapons on its own territory. Teheran said no to the deal. Then, on June 13, 2025 Israel attacked Iran and the rest is well known. Teheran decided not to develop negotiations with the US and on June 21 the United States attacked three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. While Trump touted the attack as “very successful” the status of Iran’s nuclear program remains unclear.
This year, on February 23, Netanyahu convinced Trump that the right time to attack Iran had come and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian leaders were killed in the initial days of the attacks. This again was criticized by most US allies by arguing that there was no evidence Teheran had rebuilt its nuclear capabilities after the June 2025 attacks. There were also doubts that Iran was near to acquiring the capability to strike the United States. Even American intelligence estimates claim Iran could develop an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2035!
The attacks on Iran, plus the war of Russia against Ukraine and the trivialization of nuclear weapons and attacks on nuclear facilities, have created a very difficult environment for the current NPT review. Add to that the decision of the US and Russia not to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (New START) which expired on February 5, 2026. As the last remaining nuclear arms control pact between the US and Russia, its lapse leaves no legally binding limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals for the first time in over 50 years. The New START could only be extended once, which was done in 2021. It reached its final legal deadline in 2026 without a new agreement to replace it. It is known Russia proposed continuing to abide by the treaty's limits for an additional year in late 2025, but the US did not formally accept the offer.
Instead, Donald Trump decided to increase the military budget of the country to more than US 1 Trillion dollars, of which nuclear modernization is a prominent component. Also the narrative over tactical or “small” nuclear weapons and their used in the battlefield has been endorsed by the US and Russia. Ukraine has also added to this debate by arguing that had Kyiv owned nuclear weapons, Russia would have not dared to attack it.
The phantom of nuclearization is knocking at various doors. Even though a minority of UN member countries consider nuclear weapons as a key to their security, the vast majority of countries believe nuclear weapons are a threat to security, which is why the world has developed a very important nonproliferation regime of which NPT, the nuclear weapon free zones and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons are parts. It is important the NPT review conference currently under development reaches consensus on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, since the world seems to be approaching doomsday at a very rapid pace. So be it.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
