The seminar stressed a forward-looking discussion on next steps for policymakers, including the reimplementation of sanctions, the role of intelligence and satellite monitoring, and the need for a more enforceable agreement that addresses both enrichment and missile development.

HS-Iran’s Nuclear Crossroads: Strategic Risks, Diplomatic Dilemmas with Sarah Burkhard/Olli Heinonen was originally published on Global Security Review.

Although the war in Ukraine firmly established the utility of drones in warfare, the relationship between drones and nuclear deterrence is still a largely unsettled topic. Suggesting that they are relevant is unlikely to draw much disagreement, but the exact form that relevance takes is where there may be disagreement. This leads to the following discussion.

Nuclear deterrence is a psychological effect where the perceived costs of taking an action that is undesirable to an adversary outweigh the perceived benefits. During the Cold War, the threat of catastrophic retaliation prevented the Soviet Union and the United States from initiating a nuclear attack against the other.

Historically, this doctrine relied on the survivability of nuclear arsenals in the event of a first strike by the adversary. Secure second-strike and a robust early-warning system were key elements of deterrence credibility. The introduction of drones into this framework in the years ahead creates new dimensions to the deterrence dynamic. Drones may enhance surveillance, improve command and control, and/or potentially deliver nuclear weapons.

Drones offer several advantages that make them attractive in the context of nuclear deterrence. They can provide continuous monitoring of adversary activities, bolstering early warning systems and reducing the risk of surprise attacks. Such a capability could increase strategic stability.

Advanced drones equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) could execute highly accurate first strikes, which could neutralize enemy nuclear assets preemptively. This would likely prove destabilizing.

Fielding drones capable of ensuring the survivability of nuclear forces by serving as mobile and/or concealed platforms could ensure a state maintains a credible second-strike capability. Again, this would likely prove stabilizing.

Drones could also serve as command-and-control platforms in a degraded environment when, for example, space assets are lost early in a conflict. Such a capability could serve as a deterrent to attack.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into drones has significantly expanded their operational capability. AI-enabled drones can autonomously navigate complex environments, identify targets, and execute missions with minimal human intervention. This autonomy is particularly valuable in nuclear scenarios, where rapid decision-making and precision are critical.

Moreover, drones are being developed to carry nuclear payloads, although this remains a controversial and largely theoretical capability. The miniaturization of warheads and improvements in drone propulsion systems make this possibility increasingly plausible. If realized, nuclear-armed drones could offer stealthier and more flexible delivery options compared to traditional ballistic missiles.

Recent conflicts demonstrate the strategic value of drones. In Ukraine, for instance, drones are used extensively for reconnaissance and precision strikes, prompting global powers to accelerate their investment in drone technologies. While these applications are conventional, they underscore the potential for drones to play a role in strategic deterrence.

In the United States, China, and Russia, military doctrines are certain to evolve and incorporate drones into nuclear command-and-control systems. These developments reflect a broader trend toward automation and digitization in defense strategies, raising questions about the future of human oversight in nuclear decisionmaking.

Despite their strategic benefits, drones introduce several risks that could undermine nuclear stability. Autonomous drones conducting reconnaissance near sensitive sites could be misinterpreted as precursors to a nuclear strike, triggering unintended escalation. Increased autonomy in drone operations may reduce human oversight, heightening the risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. The accessibility and affordability of drone technology could lead to its proliferation among non-nuclear states or rogue actors, complicating global arms control efforts. None of the challenges are guaranteed, but they are possibilities.

To mitigate the risks associated with drones in nuclear deterrence, the following policy measures are recommended. First, nuclear-armed states should develop treaties and agreements that define acceptable uses of drones in strategic scenarios, including restrictions on nuclear payloads. Second, there is a need for information-sharing among nuclear weapons states, designed to reduce misinterpretation of actions and build trust. Third, ensuring that critical decisions involving nuclear weapons remain under human control, even in automated systems, is an important component of any international agreement. Fourth, developing tools to monitor drone deployments and verify compliance with international agreements is also needed.

The potential for drones to enhance surveillance, improve targeting, and support second-strike capabilities makes them valuable assets in maintaining strategic stability. On the other hand, their autonomy, the potential to misinterpret their use, and the proliferation risks of some drones pose a significant challenge. As drone technology continues to evolve, it is imperative that policymakers and military experts work collaboratively to understand its benefits while safeguarding against its dangers. The future of nuclear deterrence stability may be influenced in significant ways by how well or poorly we adapt to drone technologies.

Steve Cimbala is a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Adam Lowther is the Vice President for Research at NIDS. Views express in this article are the author’s own. 

The Role of Drones in Nuclear Deterrence was originally published on Global Security Review.

Many assumed it was indeed the end of history. After all, between 1987–1993, Washington and Moscow signed four notable arms control deals: the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties I and II (START), the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Outer Space, and the Conventional Forces Europe (CFE) treaty.

Russian strategic nuclear weapons were scheduled to drop from over 10,000 deployed to 3,500 by the year 2000. The INF treaty banned shorter range missiles altogether. And Warsaw Pact conventional forces in central Europe and Russia dropped precipitously.

President Reagan’s economic war against Moscow was successful. It ended the Soviet empire by pushing Moscow to the brink of insolvency. Russia could not financially maintain its formidable Cold War nuclear and conventional force levels.

From 1993–2001, the US did not enjoy the promised “end of history.” State sponsors of terror in Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq took the fight to the US, albeit in a different mode than threatening to send massive tank armies through the Fulda Gap into Western Europe.

The US responded with a war that would last more than a decade and cost Americans an estimated $7 trillion. It was all for naught and accomplished very little.

Readiness and Modernization Shortfalls

While spending trillions on nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Department of Defense (DoD) suffered from severe readiness and modernization shortfalls. The defense budget was roughly $305 billion in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and almost exactly that in 2001 before 9/11. In the interim the budget dropped to as low as $250 billion and it was only after 1996 that the budget gradually increased to $300 billion.

When adjusted for inflation (1991–2011), the defense budget of $300 billion (1991), aside from “overseas contingency operations,” should have grown to $480 billion by 2011, assuming a 3 percent growth rate. That did not happen. The shortfall in defense spending reached $1.25 trillion during the two decades following the Soviet Union’s collapse.

The base defense budget in 2011 was roughly $500 billion, and at first glance equal to that expected. Out of a defense budget of $656 billion, $160 billion was allocated for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the two decades from 2001–2021, the Department of Defense spent $1.56 trillion on nation building—an average of $80 billion annually.

Over three decades after the Cold War’s end, the US did not invest in the modernization of the military. The three-decade peace dividend, which saw $2.8 trillion fewer defense dollars spent, was instead spent domestically and on nation building. As a result, the modernization and recapitalization of the armed forces, especially nuclear forces, were postponed.

By September 11, 2001, the US nuclear forces were already in the field for two decades (Ohio-class submarines), three decades (Minuteman III), and five decades (B-52). The nuclear budget, $77 billion at the end of the Cold War, dropped to less about $25 billion, with most of those funds simply maintaining legacy nuclear forces.

It was not until 2009–2010 that the Obama administration and Congress agreed on a plan for upgrading and replacing nuclear forces—three decades after President Ronald Reagan rolled out his nuclear modernization and sustainment plans in late 1981. New systems are projected to begin fielding in 2031 with completion by 2050.

The failure to prioritize the planning and implementation for replacing aging systems included nuclear command-and-control systems, warheads, and all three legs of the nuclear triad. The belief that the world was safer was a fool’s errand.

By shifting federal dollars from defense to social spending, the US also ensured the workforce needed to build nuclear weapons, space and missile defenses, and cyber systems are no longer there. Vendors associated with the building of Ohio-class submarines and the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) numbered in the hundreds once. Now, the nation is starting from scratch. The submarine industry lost 14,000 workers and now lacks the manpower to meet demand.

As for ICBMs, with the shutdown of the Peacekeeper production line, the US Air Force was left with a guidance and propulsion replacement program that over a period of more than a decade invested $8 billion in making sure the Minuteman III (1970) would stay in the force “through 2030.” Again, many hundreds of vendors no longer exist to make ICBM parts. Even worse is the current state of the available workforce. American universities grant more PhDs in the hard sciences to Chinese students than to American students. Across the board, the US has fewer workers in the hard sciences than needed, although industry is now reaching into the schools to bring students along a planned program of education that leads them to careers in the aerospace business.

The Challenge Ahead

The nation now finds itself in a precarious position at a time when China and Russia are at their most aggressive. The Columbia-class submarine, which will replace the Ohio-class submarine, was recently delayed two years, further increasing costs. And the herculean task of building 450 new ICBM silos armed with 400 missiles will prove costly. The US will maintain the current 400 ICBMs while simultaneously deploying 400 new missiles in new silos. The Sentinel ICBM, a technological marvel, is progressing toward production. It is a highly capable weapon that is planned for initial deployment in 2033.

Chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R–MS) recently concluded, “It will take several years of sustained investment and real growth beyond this down payment to keep pace with China’s military advances…. But to be clear: The cost of deterring war will always be dwarfed by the cost of fighting one.” This could not be more true. It is time the American people understand the challenge facing the nation and what it will take to overcome it.

Peter Huessy is a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Views expressed are his own.

What Has Been the Impact on Our Nation? was originally published on Global Security Review.

Secretary Hegseth, a veteran with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, emerged from a military culture defined by counterinsurgency warfare, rapid technological adaptation, and constrained rules of engagement. His formative years were shaped by the leadership of prominent figures like General (Ret.) David Petraeus and General (Ret.) James Mattis, who emphasized adaptive leadership, decisive action, and strategic communication. The norms of that era often prioritized minimizing civilian casualties, leveraging asymmetric warfare, and coalition-based operations. Given this background, Hegseth’s emphasis on restoring a warrior ethos and projecting unyielding strength likely stems from his own military experiences and the influential leaders who shaped his perspective.

Hegseth’s message signals a deliberate shift away from the strategic ambiguity that may embolden adversaries. The emphasis on deterrence through strength suggests a belief that Russia’s nuclear brinkmanship, China’s rapid arsenal expansion, and North Korea’s unpredictability stem from a perception of American hesitancy. One might observe that the concept of strategic ambiguity, once hailed as a nuanced tool of deterrence, now appears as outdated as the punch-card computers that once calculated nuclear trajectories.

This shift reflects a growing concern about the credibility of extended deterrence and the need for more explicit signaling of American resolve. By modernizing the nuclear triad and reaffirming America’s willingness to use force, the Pentagon aims to reinstate fear as a core pillar of deterrence.

The emphasis on reviving the warrior ethos implies that nuclear deterrence must be as much about mindset as it is about capability. It is striking to note that the last time a Secretary of Defense emphasized a similar warrior ethos, the world was still reeling from the Cuban Missile Crisis, a stark reminder of the high stakes involved. The focus on a warfighting mentality suggests a move away from the bureaucratic approach that dominated nuclear policy in recent decades. It is a move toward a more operational and combat-focused posture.

The intent may be to move away from a risk-averse approach, ensuring that warfighters at all levels understand nuclear deterrence as an active, rather than passive, responsibility. This shift could result in more frequent readiness drills, a recalibration of nuclear employment thresholds, and strategic force posturing that prioritizes offensive capabilities over restraint.

China is projected to reach nuclear parity with the US by 2035, while Russia continues aggressive arsenal expansion and hybrid warfare tactics. Hegseth’s directive appears motivated by a desire to prevent a world where nuclear deterrence is no longer dictated by American supremacy. This shift away from the established norms of strategic restraint is a necessary adaptation to a multipolar world, or it could be a dangerous escalation that precipitates a new arms race.

There is an inherent tension between maintaining strategic dominance and fostering international stability. Modernization efforts—accelerated intercontinental ballistic missile production, hypersonic weapons, and a stronger nuclear-capable bomber fleet—align with an intent to sustain America’s dominant position before near-peer threats fully materialize.

The call to rebuild the military by rapidly fielding emerging technologies may suggest a strategic push toward AI tools that enable improved nuclear command and control, quantum-resistant encryption, and space-based early warning systems. The intent behind these investments appears twofold. First, there is a desire to ensure American nuclear forces cannot be neutralized by cyber, space, or electronic warfare. Second, there is a desire to establish deterrence dominance through superior technological integration before adversaries close the gap.

If this is a return to a bold, George S. Patton-style of leadership, where decisive action and unwavering resolve are paramount, it could also risk a dangerous overemphasis on military solutions at the expense of diplomacy. This approach raises crucial questions about the balance between technological innovation and strategic prudence.

Hegseth’s message reaffirms commitment to American allies, signaling that extended deterrence remains a central policy. The intent appears to be preempting concerns of American disengagement from NATO and Indo-Pacific security commitments while simultaneously warning adversaries, especially China, that American nuclear resolve is non-negotiable. Some may assume that a more aggressive posture inherently breeds instability, paradoxically, it could also create a more stable balance of power by clearly defining red lines and deterring potential aggression.

This strategy hinges on the assumption that adversaries will respond rationally to demonstrations of force. This could translate into increased nuclear deployments to allied territories; stronger trilateral deterrence initiatives between the US, UK, and Australia (AUKUS); and a renewed focus on NATO’s nuclear-sharing agreements to counter Russian regional threats.

Secretary Hegseth’s “Message to the Force” signals an intentional and urgent shift in US nuclear strategy—one motivated by a belief that deterrence is eroding and must be aggressively rebuilt. Whether through new weapons systems, a hardened warrior mindset, or the integration of cutting-edge technology, the modernization push under his tenure will likely define the next era of American nuclear policy.

Brandon Toliver, PhD, serves on the A4 staff of Headquarters Air Force. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official guidance or position of the United States government, the Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or the United States Space Force.

Hegseth’s Doctrine: A Rebirth and Redefinition of American Deterrence? was originally published on Global Security Review.

The Role of Dark Money in Adversarial Interference

Dark money refers to funds used to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not disclosed. This form of funding is particularly sly because it operates within the loopholes of campaign finance laws, exploiting the lack of transparency in the system to advance agendas that may run counter to American interests.

Adversaries, keenly aware of the limitations of direct military confrontation with the US and its allies, turned to these covert tactics to achieve their objectives. By funneling funds through 501(c)(4) organizations, which are classified as “social welfare” groups and are not required to disclose their donors, adversaries evade scrutiny and manipulate American policy and public opinion.

One of the most concerning aspects of this tactic is its potential to influence American elections. Peter Schweikert’s scenario, presented in a recent congressional hearing, underscores this danger. If an adversary were to donate to a 501(c)(4), which then redirected those funds to a Super PAC supporting candidates sympathetic to their agenda, they could effectively buy influence and shape American policy in ways that may not align with the country’s interests.

Implications for National Security

The implications of adversarial interference through dark money are significant, affecting both the credibility of its deterrence posture and the integrity of its political system. By manipulating public perception and policy discourse, adversaries seek to undermine the credibility of deterrence, a cornerstone of national security strategy. If successful, such efforts could weaken the resolve of the US and its allies, creating a perception of vulnerability that could embolden aggressive actions by adversarial states and non-state actors. This, in turn, could lead to increased tensions and ultimately destabilize the global security environment.

Moreover, the use of dark money undermines the integrity of the American political system, which is built on principles of transparency and accountability. By circumventing disclosure requirements and influencing policy decisions behind the scenes, adversaries erode trust in democratic institutions and raise doubts about the fairness of the political process. This erosion of trust not only weakens the United States’ ability to counter adversarial threats but also undermines its standing as a global leader in democracy and governance. It sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by other actors seeking to undermine democratic norms and institutions worldwide.

Furthermore, the use of dark money in American politics could have ripple effects beyond its borders. As a global leader, the US sets an example for other countries in terms of democratic governance and transparency. If the integrity of the political system is compromised, it could embolden authoritarian regimes and other adversaries to disregard democratic norms and institutions, further destabilizing the international order.

Countermeasures and Recommendations

To counter adversarial interference through dark money, several measures should be considered. First and foremost, greater transparency is needed. Regulations should be strengthened to ensure that all sources of funding for advocacy groups, including 501(c)(4) organizations, are disclosed. This would provide greater visibility into the flow of dark money and help identify and mitigate foreign influence.

Additionally, efforts should be made to enhance public awareness of this issue. First and foremost, there must be a concerted effort to enhance public awareness and education on deterrence policy. By providing accurate and accessible information, the government can counter misinformation and ensure that the public understands the necessity of maintaining a credible deterrent.

Furthermore, it is crucial for the US to engage with its allies and partners to collectively address the challenges posed by adversarial narrative control. By presenting a unified front and sharing best practices, the international community can better defend against attempts to undermine deterrence policy and stability.

Ultimately, protecting the integrity of the domestic narrative is essential for safeguarding US interests and maintaining global stability. By taking proactive steps to counter adversarial interference, US officials and deterrence experts can ensure that the public remains well informed and supportive of efforts to modernize our nuclear capabilities.

Conclusion

The use of dark money as a tool for adversarial interference poses a significant threat to national security and the integrity of the political system. Adversaries, recognizing the limitations of direct military confrontation, are increasingly turning to covert tactics to undermine deterrence. By manipulating public perception and policy discourse through funding channels like 501(c)(4) organizations, adversaries seek to weaken the credibility of American deterrence and erode trust in democratic institutions.

The implications of this interference are far-reaching. If successful, adversaries could undermine the resolve of the US and its allies, emboldening aggressive actions and destabilizing the global security environment. Moreover, the use of dark money undermines the principles of transparency and accountability that are essential to a functioning democracy. This raises doubts about the fairness of the political process and weakens the United States’ standing as a global leader in democracy and governance.

To counter this threat, greater transparency in campaign finance laws is needed, along with enhanced public awareness and international cooperation. By taking decisive action to expose and counter adversarial interference through dark money, the US can protect its deterrence posture, safeguard its democratic institutions, and uphold its leadership role in the global community.

Aaron Holland is a PhD candidate at the University of Utah and an Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Joe Buff is a NIDS Senior Fellow and a risk-mitigation actuary researching modern nuclear deterrence and arms control. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own.

Securing Deterrence: Exposing and Countering Adversary Influence was originally published on Global Security Review.

The escalating tensions with Iran present a serious problem that cannot be ignored. The continued attacks on American troops by Iranian proxies underscores the urgent need for the Biden administration to define and communicate clear red lines to prevent further acts of aggression and protect the lives of American military personnel in the region.

 The Need for Red Lines

 Firstly, the absence of a defined red lines allows Iran to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior without facing substantial consequences. Currently the Biden administration is “weighing responses” to the attack. However, red lines were required once the administration entered office. Iran needed a clear picture of aggression’s consequences, especially aggression causing American casualties. This continued lack of clarity from the administration not only undermines the safety of American soldiers but also weakens the credibility of the United States on the international stage. Without a clear stance, there is a risk of further attacks and a wider regional conflict.

Secondly, defined red lines serve as a deterrent, signaling to Iran that the United States will not tolerate attacks on its military personnel. Establishing such boundaries is essential to maintaining stability in the region and preventing an escalation that can have far-reaching consequences. This sends a powerful message that acts of violence will not go unanswered, fostering a more secure and predictable relationship.

Furthermore, the ambiguity surrounding American responses can embolden other hostile actors in the region and elsewhere to test the waters. Clear red lines are not only about dealing with Iran but also about deterring other potential aggressors and ensuring that the United States is perceived as steadfast and resolute in defending its interests. The Biden administration must follow through on any violations of red lines to solidify credibility.

 The American Response

 To address this critical issue, the Biden administration must take decisive action. First, it is imperative to communicate clear and non-negotiable red lines to Iran, making it unequivocally clear that attacks on American soldiers will trigger severe consequences. Simultaneously, diplomatic engagement with Iran is needed to convey the seriousness of the American position, emphasizing the importance of de-escalation and constructive dialogue—but always backed by the threat of overwhelming violence.

However, to fortify its position and respond effectively to the heightened tensions with Iran, the United States must go beyond diplomatic initiatives and reinforce its military capabilities in the region. The US should bolster its military presence, which serves as both a deterrent and a tangible demonstration of the nation’s commitment to protecting its interests and ensuring the safety of its troops and allies. A visible and formidable American military presence sends a powerful signal, not only to Iran but to the entire region. The United States is prepared to defend its interests and respond decisively to any acts of aggression.

Additionally, the US must respond forcibly to the recent attack. As William Wechsler recently argued, it should be done in ways to avoid a wider regional war from occurring. Matthew Kroenig, however, suggests the United States can incapacitate the Iranian navy. It could conduct strikes on Iranian naval bases or even emulate former President Donald Trump’s approach by targeting Iranian leadership, as demonstrated in the killing of General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. Additionally, the Biden administration should consider the option of striking and dismantling Iran’s ability to proliferate nuclear weapons, especially considering American officials believe Iran can build a bomb in roughly twelve days.

Lastly, strengthening alliances with regional partners (Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, etc.) is another pivotal aspect of a comprehensive strategy that the Biden administration should pursue. Solidifying a unified front with its allies and friends in the Middle East fosters a collaborative approach to regional security. Collective efforts enable the sharing of intelligence, joint military exercises, and coordinated responses to potential threats. Such partnerships not only enhance the effectiveness of American actions but also contribute to regional stability by creating a cohesive and united response to aggression from Iran and its proxies.

Ultimately, well-defined red lines, coupled with a robust response to aggression, is essential for safeguarding American lives and maintaining stability in the Middle East. President Biden must seize the opportunity to demonstrate strength, resilience, and a commitment to protecting American interests in the face of escalating threats. If he fails to do so, deterrence will continue to falter, and attacks on American troops will continue to escalate. The stakes are high and clear red lines coupled with strict enforcement is the first step toward ensuring the US protects its interests within the region and enhances the credibility to deter further aggression.

 Aaron Holland is an Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Drawing a Clear Red Line: Biden’s Imperative Response to Iranian Aggression was originally published on Global Security Review.