SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
diplomacy
If Starting the Iran War Was Wrong, Then Ending It Is Right
The Memorandum of Understanding is a reasonable framework for ending the current conflict and taking steps toward peace with Iran; Massachusetts lawmakers should support it.
Jun 27, 2026
The Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 17 by President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian provides a road map toward peace between the two countries. Peace advocates should support it. The journey to this point has been tortuous, the interim agreement contains numerous ambiguities, and the Trump administration as the agent of change from the US side is so deeply compromised that implementation of the steps will be extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the MOU deserves our support.
Unfortunately, Massachusetts Democratic members of Congress have not welcomed the MOU. They rightly point out that Trump started the war, that it was foolish, it was illegal, unconstitutional, it was costly, it damaged the world economy, and it accomplished nothing. That is all true—but they generally have not spoken to its substance unless to criticize it.
If starting the war was wrong, ending it is right. The MOU is a reasonable framework for ending the current conflict and taking steps toward peace with Iran. It calls for opening the Hormuz strait; winding down US sanctions (and the US has already suspended sanctions on Iranian oil sales); reduction of the US military footprint in Iran’s neighborhood; curbs on Iran’s nuclear program with details to be negotiated; Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon; and a reconstruction investment fund for Iran, which would not involve any US funds.
US policy towards Iran has been predicated on hostility to the Islamic Republic since 1979. The US political elite and media have long based their policy on the thesis that Iran is a threat to the region and the United States. US leaders claim that Iran’s nuclear program may lead to its arming itself with nuclear weapons; that Iran’s ballistic missile program threatens its neighbors, especially Israel; that it funds terrorist proxies, naming Hezbollah, Hamas, and Ansar Allah (Houthis) as dangerous sources of instability; that it seeks to destroy Israel and attack the United States; that its repressive internal regime is of a piece with its regional troublemaking.
We can in no way count on Trump and Vice President JD Vance to get this negotiation over the finish line—but we can and should push them to do so.
These premises are profoundly flawed. Iran’s supreme leader has rightly ruled that nuclear weapons violate religious morality, much as Popes Francis and Leo have done. After 47 years it should be clear that Iran has never really sought to build a nuclear weapon, as it surely would have done so by now had that been its intention. Rather, its nuclear program is evidently designed to force the US to the table and get it to end US sanctions and negotiate with Iran on a respectful basis. It is the US and Israel, not Iran, that are armed with nuclear weapons—and Trump who explicitly threatened to use them on Iran. Does Iran arm terrorists? Maybe sometimes, but it is Israel, armed by the US, that has laid waste to the Middle East, attacking Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Yemen, killing tens or hundreds of thousands, over just the past three years—although Iran has certainly done what it could to hit back in response to those constant provocations.
Within the anti-Iran consensus among US elites, one wing calls for diplomacy to obtain concessions from Iran, and for economic sanctions to force Iran to follow US wishes. President Barack Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was based on this strategy. Obama first imposed sanctions, then promised sanctions relief in exchange for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program—although little sanctions relief was actually delivered by the US before President Trump ended the JCPOA in 2018.
The other wing of the US elite, joined by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, calls for war to destroy Iran’s military capacity, its nuclear program, cripple its economy, ensure it could not threaten its neighbors or Israel, and if possible, overthrow its government. President Trump took up this approach when he joined Israel in bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities in June last year and then resumed full-scale war with Iran on February 28.
But after Iran struck back at Israel and at US bases and economic infrastructure in the Gulf states, and closed the Strait of Hormuz, everyone understood that the US military campaign to subdue Iran had failed. The MOU that Trump and Iran’s president Pezeshkian signed on June 17 reflects this reality and sets forward a direction that, if implemented, would not only end the US-Iran war, but would begin to reverse the long anti-Iran campaign waged by the US It could be a historic step toward reconciliation between the US and Iran.
It is ironic that the reactionary, racist, ultra-imperialist administration of Donald Trump could be the one to reverse decades of bipartisan US hostile policy. But just as President Richard Nixon went to China, such shifts can happen, and can be led from the right side of US politics. Another example is Trump’s two-year rapprochement with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un in his first term, in which he met Kim three times and signed peace framework agreements—though he ultimately dropped the project and reverted to a posture of hostility. Because Trump has no firm ideology, he sometimes can read the situation more clearly than politicians whose policies are anchored in an ossified world view. We can in no way count on Trump and Vice President JD Vance to get this negotiation over the finish line—but we can and should push them to do so.
Indeed, the situation today calls for peace with Iran and a completely new Middle East policy. Israel has become a liability for the United States more clearly than ever before, and US support for Israel’s constant wars on its neighbors and genocide directed at its occupied Palestinian population, its invasion of Lebanon, and its attack on Iran, are now very unpopular in the US. Iran has successfully asserted its ability to defend itself. And as Trump said on June 18, the world economy is teetering as it runs short of oil.
Vice President Vance held out the possibility that Iran can receive a $300 billion reconstruction fund based on the Gulf states, provided a final agreement is reached. In Switzerland on June 21, he asked: “How much more can we accomplish together? Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle East permanently, or do we go back to doing things the old way?”
The point, though, is that the wealthy elite of the Gulf are evidently ready to invest in Iran’s reconstruction from the destruction the US has caused. Why? To make money on the investments, to get their foot in the door for future business deals in the potentially lucrative Iranian market, and in the hope that economic ties will reduce the likelihood of a future war.
A diplomatic resolution of the US-Iran hostility would be positive for the US, Iran, and the region. Massachusetts’ Democratic members of Congress should speak in favor of diplomacy and seek to implement them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Forget the World Cup—the Most Important Soccer Match Is Happening in Korea This Week
A rare inter-Korean women’s soccer match offers something the Korean Peninsula desperately needs: hope.
May 18, 2026
As the world begins turning its attention toward this summer’s FIFA World Cup, an even more meaningful soccer event is taking place this week in Korea.
Pyongyang-based Naegohyang Women’s Football Club faces Suwon FC Women in the semifinals of the Asian Football Confederation Women’s Champions League in South Korea—marking the first time North Korea has sent athletes to South Korea to compete since 2018. Some 200 South Korean civic groups have formed a 3,000-strong cheering squad for the historic inter-Korean match, and South Korea’s government set aside 300 million won ($202,000) in government funds to support the cheering squad.
For many, this may sound like a niche sports story. But Korea peace activists recognize this as one of the most hopeful openings in years.
For decades, inter-Korean relations have been defined internationally through the language of crisis: missile tests, nuclear threats, military drills, and sanctions. Diplomacy, meanwhile, has too often been treated as politically risky or naïve.
As Korean peace advocates, we know that openings are few and far between, and we cannot afford to miss this window of opportunity. Soccer may be a spectator sport, but people-led peacebuilding efforts require us all to participate.
But history tells a different story.
Time and again, engagement between North and South Korea has succeeded in reducing tensions and creating opportunities for dialogue. The last major period of inter-Korean diplomacy began not with weapons negotiations, but with athletes marching together.
At the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics, athletes from North and South Korea entered the opening ceremony side by side under the Korean Unification Flag after a series of talks between then-South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The image captured global attention and helped catalyze one of the most diplomatically active periods on the peninsula in years, including inter-Korean summits at Panmunjom and unprecedented US-North Korea diplomacy.
Soccer, in particular, has long served as a bridge. North and South Korean men’s and women’s teams have faced each other numerous times since 1946—even before the Korean War officially began. North Korea also sent women footballers to compete in South Korea during the 2014 Asian Games, and North Korean athletes last traveled south in 2018 for an inter-Korean table tennis event. In their 1996 World Cup run, North Korea men’s team challenged Cold War stereotypes as they made a stunning upset victory over Italy’s team, an episode explored in the documentary The Game of Their Lives.
These exchanges allow ordinary Koreans to encounter one another—and the global community—outside the framework of hostility and forever war. Moments like this have the power to catalyze efforts for change.
As Korean American women advocating for peace in Korea, we have seen firsthand how engagement efforts can break through where militarized approaches have failed us repeatedly.
The Korean War never officially ended. Americans are often shocked to learn that the war was only temporarily suspended with a ceasefire armistice in 1953, making it the United States’ longest-running overseas conflict. For over 70 years, divided families and everyday people have borne the costs of ongoing conflict.
Relentless sanctions and isolation have failed to produce denuclearization, reconciliation, or lasting stability. Instead, they have entrenched mistrust, division, and forever war. In recent years, discussion about North Korea in the United States has become trapped between cynicism and alarmism.
This has all culminated in today’s bleak political landscape: Inter-Korean relations are deeply frozen. North Korea has renounced reunification, and under South Korea’s former administration, Seoul increasingly labeled the North a principal enemy. Communication has stalled, tensions have escalated, and diplomacy has all but disappeared.
But political landscapes can change quickly. Following the impeachment of far-right leader Yoon Suk Yeol and the election of Lee Jae-myung, Seoul has increasingly called for renewed inter-Korean dialogue with Pyeongyang, and Pyeongyang has indicated some willingness to engage.
That is why this week’s soccer match matters.
Of course, no single game or summit will solve the security crisis in Korea. But the game demonstrates the importance of engagement—especially during periods of deep political freeze. And importantly, this moment comes through women. Women have consistently been at the forefront of peacebuilding efforts on the peninsula—from family reunification advocacy to feminist peace movements calling for a formal end to the Korean War.
These developments raise the question: Will Washington continue defaulting to the same failed approach of maximum pressure and isolation, or will it support the growing desire among US voters who want an end to forever war and peace with North Korea?
As Korean peace advocates, we know that openings are few and far between, and we cannot afford to miss this window of opportunity. Soccer may be a spectator sport, but people-led peacebuilding efforts require us all to participate.
Policymakers should build upon this moment to support initiatives that lower tensions, remove the threat of nuclear war, and expand opportunities for contact between ordinary people—including cultural exchanges, athletic competitions, humanitarian cooperation, and renewed inter-Korean dialogue. This includes ending the US travel ban to North Korea, which is up for renewal this August.
Peace is not built in a single summit or event, but gradually through relationships, trust building, and repeated acts of engagement. While this week’s match in Suwon will last only 90 minutes, if we are wise enough to recognize its significance, its meaning could endure far longer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Trump-Xi Meeting, US Coalition Urges Congress to ‘Prioritize Peace’ and End ‘Confrontational Posture’ With China
“Americans are increasingly supportive of US-China cooperation, while tensions with China do not serve American interests,” said dozens of anti-war groups as President Trump met with Chinese President Xi.
May 14, 2026
As US President Donald Trump meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping, a coalition of anti-war groups is calling on Congress to pressure the administration to "prioritize peace, cooperation, and stability" at a time when the US-China relationship is increasingly hostile.
“Americans are increasingly supportive of US-China cooperation, while tensions with China do not serve American interests,” argued the coalition, which includes Just Foreign Policy, Win Without War, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Our Revolution, and dozens of other groups in a letter sent to members of Congress on Thursday.
They cited recent surveys showing that negative perceptions of China are consistently falling among Americans, including a Pew Research poll from January, which showed that just 28% of Americans viewed China as an "enemy" compared with 42% who saw it that way in 2024.
“At a time when so many domestic needs are going unmet, a confrontational posture toward China is costing untold billions of dollars in military build-up, trade and energy disruption, and securitization of technology—money that could and should be spent on the things Americans need at home," the coalition continued.
Trump's first visit to China in nearly a decade comes amid a global energy crisis caused by his war in Iran, a conflict where China has expressed a desire to act as a mediator.
While the coalition denounced Trump's war as "an unauthorized war of choice" that has led the world to a "deeply dangerous and uncertain place," it also said it presented an opportunity for the US and China to engage in diplomacy in hopes of putting the relationship "on a more stable footing."
Xi said that Taiwan remains the "most important issue in China-US relations” as the talks kicked off, warning that if mishandled, it could create a "very dangerous situation."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said after a meeting on Thursday that the decadesold "One China Policy," which takes no explicit view on Taiwan's sovereignty, hasn't changed. Though he warned that it would be “a terrible mistake” for China to attempt to seize the island by force.
Friction between the US and China has only been heightened after Trump announced the sale of more than $11 billion worth of weapons to Taiwan in December, the largest ever arms sale to the island. At the time, China said the sale "gravely violates" the One China Policy.
The anti-war coalition warned that "current military and political trends in the United States, China, and Taiwan are moving us closer to a serious crisis or conflict over the island" and called on the US to "revitalize its One China Policy and press Beijing to reaffirm its focus on peaceful unification, with no timeline."
“Diplomacy with Beijing, rather than military posturing or arms racing across the Taiwan Strait,” they said, “is the only realistic path forward, especially since the American public has little interest in participating in a military conflict against China in defense of Taiwan.”
According to a survey by the Institute for Global Affairs in November, just 35% of Americans said they'd support the US sending troops to defend Taiwan if it were to be attacked by China. In a January poll commissioned by The New Republic, just 10% of Democratic voters said they wanted their party to support sending troops, and 30% wanted it to support sending weapons.
But Democratic leadership has pressured Trump to take the opposite approach and ramp up hostility toward Beijing in advance of this week's talks.
On Wednesday, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was joined by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Jim Himes (D-Ct.), and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) to send a letter urging Trump to approve a delayed $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan ahead of his visit.
The Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee joined in support for the sale, saying that "Trump must reaffirm in his meeting with Xi that the US will continue to uphold our longstanding One-China policy while standing firmly with Taiwan’s democracy and security. And he must make that clear by notifying Congress of the $14 billion arms sales to Taiwan. Anything else would undermine American credibility."
Just Foreign Policy (JFP) countered that the request to send more weapons just before talks were set to begin was "deeply unserious" and an "absurdly ill-timed move that would sabotage diplomacy—or worse."
Jake Werner, the director of the East Asia program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft—another signatory to the anti-war letter—warned that while Democrats should confront Trump on the issue of China, they shouldn't goad him into an even more hawkish approach.
“If you want to attack Trump, that's great, but you should attack Trump on the basis of prudent, conflict-avoiding principles,” Werner said. “They should be criticizing him not for engaging in diplomacy, but for engaging in the wrong kind of diplomacy.”
In their letter to Congress, these and the other anti-war groups pushed for a similar diplomatic approach to other sources of tension with China, arguing that the US should take no position on the sovereignty of disputed territory in the South China Sea.
They also encouraged members of Congress to avoid creating "incentives" for other nations to adopt more confrontational stances toward China.
They singled out a first-ever test launch of an American Tomahawk missile in the Philippines last week, which had the capability to reach the Chinese mainland. Chinese military observers described it as the “worst provocation” in years by the US and suggested that Beijing should ramp up its air-defense and stealth-strike drone capabilities in response, according to the South China Morning Post.
The anti-war coalition said they "urge Congress to press the administration to avoid further escalatory signals and to instead pursue diplomacy to restore and expand non-proliferation agreements that can prevent a wasteful and dangerous arms race."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Says It Won't Negotiate With 'Erratic' Trump After Genocidal Threat to 'Blow Up' Whole Country
“Our assessment is that Trump effectively lacks both a coherent plan and the capacity to secure even a temporary agreement,” an Iranian official said.
Apr 19, 2026
Iran says it has no plans to negotiate with the US after President Donald Trump said Sunday that "the whole country is going to get blown up" if Iran refuses to make a deal.
Trump claimed that Iranian officials were heading to Islamabad for another round of talks Monday with Vice President JD Vance, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
But Iran’s official IRNA news agency later reported that claims Iran was coming to negotiate were “not true" and described the announcement as “a media game and part of the blame game to pressure Iran.”
The Tasnim News Agency, which is linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reiterated the government’s previous position that it would not negotiate unless Trump lifts his blockade of Iranian ports, which Tehran considers a violation of the ceasefire between the US and Iran.
After Trump said the blockade would continue, Iran again shut down travel through the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, following a brief reopening Friday following the announcement of a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel.
IRNA added that negotiators decided not to return because of "Washington’s excessive demands, unrealistic expectations, constant shifts in stance, repeated contradictions, and the ongoing naval blockade."
An unnamed Iranian official familiar with Tehran's internal deliberations told Drop Site News on Sunday that Tehran is prepared for a long war.
He said negotiators would prefer to make a deal with the US that would give Iran the right to enrich uranium, provide sanctions relief, and establish a long-term non-aggression framework.
But the official said Trump’s erratic behavior and maximalist demands—including that Iran surrender all its enriched uranium—are causing Iranian officials to sour on the idea that he could ever be a trustworthy negotiating partner.
“Our assessment is that Trump effectively lacks both a coherent plan and the capacity to secure even a temporary agreement,” the official said. “His decision-making appears to be grounded in Israeli political and security assessments, conveyed to him on a daily basis.”
Trump has expressed a desire to find an off-ramp from the war, which has caused economic upheaval and further tanked his already grim approval rating.
But he has also stood by Israel as it has repeatedly undermined negotiations by continuing its attacks on Lebanon, including after a 10-day ceasefire that began Friday. Iran has portrayed ending these attacks as key to a durable ceasefire agreement with the US.
The official said that during the previous round of talks in Islamabad, which resulted in a two-week ceasefire earlier this month, Iran "clearly stated" to Vance that "public threats" like the one Trump issued to wipe out all of "Iranian civilization" would not be tolerated again.
Even before Trump made more such threats Sunday morning, Iran had not yet agreed to another round of talks. The official said that Iranian negotiators are still open to further discussions, but added that they "need to be meaningful, and their framework should be defined in advance."
“The Islamabad negotiations provided President Trump with an appropriate opportunity to exit the war,” the official added. “Should [Trump] nevertheless choose to continue the conflict, Iran will, for a prolonged period, suspend diplomatic channels and will seek, within the context of the conflict, to impose significantly greater costs on United States interests.”
Mohammed Sani, a political analyst based in Tehran, told Drop Site News that Iran appears prepared to inflict more pain on the US should Trump choose violence.
"We see that the Americans have been bringing in more troops and equipment to prepare to attack, but the Iranians have also not been resting during these two weeks of ceasefire,” he said. “They have been preparing, repairing the underground missile cities, bringing in new air defenses, missiles, and drones. Iran is at a high standard of readiness right now. If there is another round of negotiations sometime later in the future, after another round of American attacks against Iran fail, the Iranian conditions for peace will be much tougher.”
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said Sunday that Trump’s apparent belief that he can use threats of mass violence to bully Iran into a favorable deal is pushing Tehran further from the negotiating table.
"Due to poor discipline, Trump ends up prioritizing the optics of victory over actually getting a deal," Parsi said. "Instead of using deescalatory signals from Iran to get closer to a deal, he declares victory and seeks Iran's humiliation, and by that, he undermines his own diplomacy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Only True Nuclear Protective Shield Is Global Disarmament
Politicians and the media use deliberately confusing terms that downplay the dangers of a military and nuclear arms race to the general population.
Feb 26, 2026
The use of key security policy terms in public discourse is intended to suggest facts that serve to calm people down. However, there are many reasons for concern that could also trigger peace forces.
The Illusion of a Nuclear Protective Shield
Political scientist and historian Herfried Münkler called for a European atomic bomb as early as 2023. There is currently an increasingly heated debate about whether Germany should seek refuge under France's nuclear protective shield in view of Russia's aggression in Ukraine. The leader of the Social Democrats in the European Parliament, Katarina Barley, also raised the issue of acquiring nuclear bombs as part of European armament in 2024. The German and French heads of government, Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron, are also paving the way for talks on European nuclear armament and the extension of France's nuclear umbrella, according to Merz in his speech at the Munich Security Conference in early 2026.
There is repeated talk of a nuclear umbrella. The problem is already clear in this choice of words. Such a protective shield, which one would only have to deploy to be protected, does not exist. This term suggests that Germany or even Europe would be protected from attacking missiles with nuclear warheads if the nuclear protective shield were installed. However, there is no protection against dozens of hypersonic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads attacking simultaneously. The few minutes of reaction time are not enough for a successful counterattack.
Anyone who promises a nuclear protective shield in this sense is trying to deceive people about the real danger of a nuclear conflict in order to achieve their actual military-strategic goals.
So-called "mini-nukes" have a yield of between 10 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent, which is roughly the same as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Those who are more knowledgeable know that the term “nuclear protective shield” refers more to the nuclear deterrence of a potential attacker. This deterrence would result from the nuclear second-strike capability if a nuclear first strike is underway or has already taken place. The question here, of course, is whether a nuclear second strike is still possible if the first strike with nuclear weapons could not be repelled. Here, too, the talk of a nuclear protective shield is problematic.
Lowering the Nuclear Threshold Through ‘Tactical’ Nuclear Weapons
The distinction between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons also poses a semantic problem. Here, technological language suggests that there is a clear distinction between the two. Tactical nuclear weapons are weapons that are intended for limited use due to their lower explosive power, shorter range, and deployment. However, the boundaries are fluid, and Russia also considers tactical weapons to be strategic. If this distinction is nevertheless used, the use of more limited (tactical) nuclear weapons could then be viewed fundamentally differently from the use of larger and longer-range nuclear weapons in terms of explosive power.
The conceptual problem is further exacerbated by so-called “mini-nukes.” Thus, the gradation and differentiation of nuclear weapons pretends that a nuclear war could be confined to a regional or local level. This merely lowers the nuclear threshold and thus downplays the risk of nuclear escalation. Incidentally, so-called "mini-nukes" have a yield of between 10 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent, which is roughly the same as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is therefore also a linguistic distortion and trivialization of a terrible weapon.
Putin's Special Military Operation as a Crude Semantic Deception
Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a clear act of war, albeit without a declaration of war. Russia's war against Ukraine, which has now been going on for over four years, has been disguised as a “special military operation.” To this day, the Kremlin refuses to acknowledge the conceptual truth of its war. In doing so, it attempts to downplay the illegality and barbarity of its aggression to its own population and to the world. "Special military operation" sounds more like a clean, technical intervention. Language could not be used in a more manipulative way, considering that hundreds of thousands of people have already fallen victim to this war, millions have fled, and Ukraine's vital infrastructure and ecology have been destroyed.
When people are satisfied with their governments' security policy, which is secured by a system of terminology that obscures the facts, then a false consciousness is hegemonically induced in them.
Equally problematic is the term "Russian world" (Russkij Mir), which Russian President Vladimir Putin uses repeatedly. A Russian world as such does not even exist in Russia, as it is a multiethnic state created by coercion and military force, with very different cultural characteristics among its peoples. Thus, talk of the "Russkij Mir" serves to justify military aggression against other states with the argument that the Russian world and the Russian-speaking people there are under threat.
This ethnically charged term is also the central ideological construct used to restrict the state independence of countries such as Belarus and Ukraine.
Deception Through the Term ‘Nuclear Sharing’
Since Germany is not permitted to possess nuclear weapons under the 2+4 Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NATO has agreed on the principle of "nuclear sharing." However, this term also serves to obscure harsh security policy realities. According to reports, up to 20 US B61-3/4 nuclear bombs are stored in Büchel (Rhineland-Palatinate), combined with German Air Force Tornadoes capable of delivering nuclear warheads to an enemy target.
However, the American nuclear capabilities stored there—and also in other European NATO countries—do not allow for participation by the German federal government. Participation implies the possibility of having a say. But the US government repeatedly makes it clear that the possible use of these nuclear weapons is exclusively subject to the respective US government. This undermines and circumvents the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear sharing among NATO countries, while at the same time obscuring the fact that these weapons are controlled by a foreign power.
Misuse of the Term ‘Modernization’ of Nuclear Weapons
The potential dangers of the "modernization" of nuclear weapons are also being downplayed. The term "modernization" as used in security policy also implies a positive development of nuclear weapons—after all, "modern" represents a positive innovation in language usage—and obscures the increasing danger of these weapon systems.
A particularly problematic aspect of this modernization is the integration of artificial intelligence and the expansion of its functionality within the framework of nuclear strategies. However, AI works on the principle of probability calculation and is extremely prone to error. The information from hundreds of sensors, which an AI uses to make a statement in a very short time, e.g., about attacking nuclear missile swarms, cannot be reliably verified by those responsible in the few minutes of time available. However, this development could make an accidental nuclear war more likely.
War Readiness Versus Defense Capability—the Importance of Conceptual Usage
When German Defense Minister Pistorius says that Germany must become “war ready,” this contradicts the defense mandate of the Basic Law and the prohibition of wars of aggression (GG Art. 26 (1) and 115a). The concept of war includes both defense and attack. Therefore, if the federal government adheres to the Basic Law, it should only talk about and take appropriate measures to become defensible.
War readiness is based on the postulate of military strength through deterrence. Since no state wants to voluntarily face the military superiority of an enemy state or military alliance, that state will devote an increasing share of its national budget to further armament measures in order to surpass its opponent in military strength. This leads to an arms race and—as World War I shows, for example—ultimately to war.
Defense capability relies on the priority of negotiations, diplomacy, and systematically coordinated control and disarmament treaties.
Defense capability means prioritizing military defense capabilities, e.g., with regard to defending against drone attacks, in conjunction with improved “resilience” of critical infrastructure. Even this kind of resilience is currently unachievable for any state. Today's industrialized nations in the digital age are virtually impossible to protect against hybrid attacks, especially hacking of power and heating networks. Anyone who suggests that this is entirely possible creates a false sense of security.
But when people are satisfied with their governments' security policy, which is secured by a system of terminology that obscures the facts, then a false consciousness is hegemonically induced in them. They are deprived of the civil society power to resist their government's risky course. This also characterizes the dilemma of the current peace movement. Although it clearly addresses the dangers of military escalation and nuclear war in its appeals, it does not find the resonance that would actually be expected in the current crisis situation.
Deployment of US Missiles in 2026 as a ‘Security Policy’ of Deterrence
The deployment of three different missile systems, including hypersonic weapons, planned for November 2026, follows the verdict of strength through deterrence. These weapon systems will be stationed in Germany under US command. This was agreed upon between former US President Joe Biden and former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on the sidelines of the NATO summit in New York in the summer of 2024, without any debate in the Bundestag. The deployment will take place without any accompanying offer of negotiation to Russia. These are so-called "decapitation weapons," i.e., weapons that are not primarily intended for defense, as stipulated in the Basic Law.
In this case, too, it is problematic to speak of "security policy" in relation to the US missile deployment. It could well be that this deployment could increase uncertainty and the risk of escalation for Germany. These weapon systems, which certainly pose a threat to Russia, could become targets for Russian missile attacks, which in turn would trigger a corresponding spiral of retaliation, possibly even nuclear.
But defense capability relies on the priority of negotiations, diplomacy, and systematically coordinated control and disarmament treaties. In this context, building up military defenses and attempting to secure critical infrastructure is entirely necessary and legitimate. However, the planned US missile deployment undermines this defense policy objective. What will Russia do in this case? It should not be forgotten that Russia has already deployed Zircon and Kinschal hypersonic missiles, for example in Kaliningrad, and has already used the Oreschnik hypersonic weapon, which is virtually impossible to defend against, at least twice in the war in Ukraine. If NATO's Western allies are not prepared to renegotiate the disarmament and control treaties, Russia will certainly attempt to expand and upgrade its own arsenal once the US missiles are deployed at the end of 2026.
Conclusion
Disclosing the dangers implied in security policy language in connection with nuclear weapons does not mean defeatism or resignation in the face of an opponent armed to the teeth with conventional and nuclear weapons.
However, if people allow themselves to be deceived by appeasing terminology and its use in public discourse on security policy, this leads to a dangerous lulling of these people into a false sense of security. The security policy promises behind this terminology give them a feeling of security that does not correspond to the actual risk when states focus on military armament, in particular the further development of nuclear weapons systems, and military escalation. The disclosure of real dangers is not intended to cause anxiety about security policy and paralysis, but rather to raise awareness of actual dangers as the basis for the priority need for improved defense capabilities, in particular through negotiations and diplomacy.
Historical experience with a policy of deterrence through military strength shows, however, that a spiral of military armament increases the likelihood of military conflict.
In summary, it can therefore be said that the security policy goal must be defense capability. This also includes a disarmament proposal that has already been mentioned several times, within a framework controlled by the United Nations, that the two major military powers, the US and Russia, should gradually disarm all weapons systems, including nuclear weapons, to the level of the People's Republic of China. In a next step, under the transparent supervision of international institutions such as the UN and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, these three states would have to disarm to the level of smaller states until, for example, the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is fully implemented.
This would be an effective and sensible security policy worthy of the name. Even though there are currently major geopolitical obstacles standing in the way of such controlled and transparent international disarmament, this peace-bringing disarmament strategy must not be lost sight of. The trillions that would be saved by all participating states as a result of disarmament and the elimination of further armament could also be a compelling argument for such an internationally coordinated and balanced disarmament strategy, at least in the medium term.
Historical experience with a policy of deterrence through military strength shows, however, that a spiral of military armament increases the likelihood of military conflict. A security policy that is oriented toward defense capability rather than war capability would also have to use different language. Obscuring terms that are embedded in a context of meaning and semantically designed to conceal rather than reveal military risks are part of a media-mediated military strategy that will not lead to peace.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Foreign Minister Says ‘There Is No Military Solution to Our Nuclear Program’ as Trump Ramps Up Threats
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," said Abbas Araghchi. "A military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences."
Feb 20, 2026
As President Donald Trump continued to threaten a potentially massive war, Iran's foreign minister stressed his commitment to peaceful negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
Amid the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq, Trump said on Thursday that he was weighing an initial, limited strike in order to force Iran to negotiate a new deal to limit its nuclear enrichment and would launch a broader attack—potentially aimed at toppling the entire government—if the country refused to do so.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded to these demands in a lengthy interview on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" on Friday, discussing recent talks with the US in Geneva.
"One thing I have to emphasize is that there is no military solution for Iran's nuclear program," Araghchi said. "That was tested last year, and there was a huge attack on our facilities. They killed and assassinated our scientists, but they couldn't kill our nuclear program."
After his strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in June, Trump claimed to have “obliterated” Iran's nuclear program and enrichment capabilities. But less than a year later, he is once again threatening a much bigger attack on Iran using the same justification.
Iran's Masoud Pezeshkian insisted earlier this week that his country is “absolutely not seeking nuclear weapons” and invited international inspectors in to verify it. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, meanwhile, has reiterated that Iran has the right to a nuclear industry.
"If they want a solution for Iran's nuclear program, if they want to ensure that Iran's nuclear program would remain peaceful forever," Araghchi said on Friday, "the only solution is diplomatic negotiation."
Although Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear power for peaceful means under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Trump publicly declared that he would not accept a deal that allows "any enrichment” by Iran.
Araghchi, however, said that's not what the discussion has looked like behind the scenes. "The US side has not asked for zero enrichment,” he said.
Instead, he said they discussed "political commitments and technical measures" to "make sure that this program is only for peaceful purposes" and said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, was involved in helping to craft them.
"This is what we have already done in 2015," Araghchi said, referring to the first nuclear deal between Iran and the US, which Trump ripped up during his first term, even though Iran was complying with its strict enrichment limits. "I believe that we can do it again, even a better one," he said.
Although the US president warned on Thursday that Iran must agree to a deal within 10 days or "bad things happen," Araghchi said there has been "no ultimatum" from Trump and that the only discussion between the two sides was on how to reach a "fast deal."
"We are under sanctions. Obviously, any day the sanctions are terminated sooner would be better for us. So we have no reason to delay a possible deal," Araghchi said. "For the US side also, President Trump and his team are interested in a quick deal. So we agreed to work with each other to achieve a deal as soon as possible. The only question is how to make it a fair deal, a win-win deal, an equitable deal."
Trump has also demanded that Iran surrender its ballistic missile program and support for regional allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, which Iran has said are nonstarters. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has nudged Trump keep pushing these maximal demands and has been accused of attempting to goad the US into war with its number one adversary by injecting "poison pills" into the negotiations.
Araghchi did not clarify the extent to which these demands have come up as sticking points during recent talks.
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," Araghchi said. "[A] military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences, not only for us, perhaps for the whole region and for the whole international community, which is fed up with different escalations and wars in our region and beyond."
Soon after Araghchi's interview aired, Trump told reporters he was considering a military strike to force Iran into a deal.
“I guess I can say I am considering that,” he said at the start of a meeting with governors at the White House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog: Sure Looks Like Trump Uses App That Auto-Deletes Messages to Chat With World Leaders
"President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping."
Jan 27, 2026
A watchdog group is raising concerns that President Donald Trump may have violated federal recordkeeping laws by using an auto-deleting message application to text world leaders.
On Tuesday, the group American Oversight sent a letter to White House Counsel David Warrington asking for information about whether the president is taking all the required steps to comply with the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of all presidential records—including digital correspondence—during official duties.
The group highlighted two posts Trump made on Truth Social last Tuesday in which appeared to reveal that he was using Signal or another similar messaging app to discuss world affairs with world leaders.
The first screenshot shows a message from French President Emmanuel Macron, who discussed plans to meet with Trump about his proposal to take over Greenland and meetings with other foreign diplomats.
The second was sent from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who told Trump he'd use his "media engagements" in Davos to "highlight" Trump's work in Ukraine and Gaza, and expressed an interest in "finding a way forward on Greenland."
While some European diplomats found it troubling that any intimate communication they have with Trump could be exposed to the world on a whim, American Oversight said it also raised concerns about the preservation of records.
Trump has a long history of flouting rules surrounding the proper storage of documents. The group pointed out that during his first term, the president would often rip up notes, memos, and documents after reading them and at least twice reportedly attempted to flush them down the toilet.
More recently, he was indicted for improperly stashing away classified documents at his personal residence at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House and showing them to people without security clearances.
The second Trump White House has already been involved in a scandal surrounding their use of deleting message apps when a journalist was accidentally invited into a private Signal chat last year, which contained the administration's plans for an imminent strike on Yemen. The messages in that chat were reportedly set to delete after one week, before later being changed to four, which would have also violated the Presidential Records Act.
“President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping,” said American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. “The Presidential Records Act exists to ensure transparency of presidential decisions and safeguard the historical record for the American people."
"Given President Trump’s well-documented history of mishandling sensitive information and presidential records," he added, "the White House must assure the public that these communications are secure and being preserved and protected in full compliance with the law.”
The group has requested that the White House counsel disclose any other messages Trump may have sent using auto-deleting apps and ensure that any messages sent through mobile messaging programs are properly preserved.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Moral or Militarized American Foreign Policy?
Instead of a values-based foreign policy, what has come out of the Trump White House this past year was a steady drumbeat of aggressive militaristic taunting.
Jan 04, 2026
As the world takes stock of the United States’ most recent military venture in South America, it seems an appropriate moment to consider the possible long-term implications of what will be wrought from the seizure of Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro and President Trump’s declaration that “we’re going to run the country.”
Americans historically have wrestled with balancing power politics and moral concerns in their approach to foreign policy. An accounting of the second Trump administration’s first year in office, however, suggests that those leading in Washington today are not all that concerned with such dynamics. This should cause concern, especially after the current military strike on Venezuela. As US foreign policy became less guided by moral ambitions in 2025, it became, perhaps inevitably so, more militarized.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, laying out the new administration’s priorities back in January 2025, mandated that US foreign policy should answer “three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?” Nowhere in this guidance did Rubio speak of setting an example based on moral virtues, on values that might favor diplomacy over raw military power within the international arena.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the latest National Security Strategy, published in November, remained equally silent on morality’s role in defining American grand strategy. It did, though, state that the United States would “reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere.”
Instead of a values-based foreign policy, what has come out of the Trump White House this past year, culminating with the attack on Venezuela, was a steady drumbeat of aggressive militaristic taunting, much of it threatening military violence and economic sanctions while politicizing the nation’s armed forces, both at home and overseas. These actions, of course, sit at odds with the president’s 2025 inaugural address in which Mr. Trump, evoking Richard Nixon, argued that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.”
A chaotic year in, one might question that historical inheritance. Conjuring a near existential threat at the nation’s southern border, for instance, the president began his term by ordering the Pentagon send some 1,500 active-duty troops to assist with border patrolling and “alien” deportation missions.
Equally belligerent language targeted Denmark over the intent to take Greenland, with Trump declining to rule out the use of military force to achieve his aims. Nearly a full year later, the president is still arguing that the world’s largest island is “essential” to US national security, suggesting that forcible annexation of an ally’s territory is warranted as long as the commander-in-chief deems it so.
Closer to home, the administration also set its sights on the Western Hemisphere, claiming the United States’ command of the Panama Canal despite a 1977 treaty guaranteeing its neutrality. Then, with little restraint and less legal authority, the Department of Defense began attacking suspected drug-smuggling craft off the coast of Venezuela, escalating tensions throughout the second half of 2025 that led to a blockade of the South American country, the CIA carrying out drone strikes on its coastal port facilities, and now a unilateral, illegal invasion ostensibly aimed at regime change and command of the Venezuelan oil industry.
This devaluation of diplomacy is not new. It marked Trump’s first year in office, as the State Department abruptly paused all foreign aid and assistance with little to no warning soon after inauguration, with critics lamenting the impact such suspensions have had on global health programs over the course of 2025.
Such breakneck, unprincipled flexing of American power abroad this arguably was matched by a similar lack of moral concerns at home. The pardoning of domestic terrorists who attacked the US capitol on January 6th, 2020—with far-right extremist groups like the “Proud Boys” vowing revenge for their jail time—and the unlawful militarized policing of American cities were but just two examples of an administration acting with few self-imposed ethical guardrails.
But morals matter, both at home and abroad. They always have, even if the United States historically has not always lived up to its idealistic founding principles. Morality is not irrelevant to a nation’s foreign policy, despite noted State Department diplomat George Kennan once arguing that the “interests of the national society” such as “military security” and “the integrity of its political life…have no moral quality” of their own.
Of course, power matters, too. But power unhinged from ethical reasoning (and restraint) leads to a dark world in which military power becomes the inevitable answer to nearly any foreign policy question. Even a realist like Hans Morgenthau, author of the 1948 Politics Among Nations, counseled that the “aspiration for power” should, in some sense, be “in harmony with the demands of reason, morality, and justice.” As the famed political scientist put it, morality, mores, and law reinforced each other and offered “protection to the life of society and to the lives of the individuals who compose it.”
More recently, Joseph S. Nye, Jr. argued that we should consider the potential benefits of “maintaining an institutional order that encourages moral interests.” In short, the tension between morality and power has been healthy in our past debates over foreign policy. (Even if Morgenthau himself warned against the “intoxication with moral abstractions.”) Historically speaking, moral aims have set examples abroad, highlighted the values of human rights across the globe, and informed critiques against those who support more imperialistic and militaristic policies.
But what happens when the president of the United States, in both rhetoric and deeds, flaunts power and interests above all else? When morals are deemed an inconvenience at best, a threat to rational decision-making at worst? The likely result is the militarization of the nation’s foreign policy.
True, Mr. Trump has boasted that his deal-making has ended eight wars while complaining that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. Yet motives matter when it comes to moral concerns. Was the president seeking peace or adulation? Moreover, Mr. Trump has seemed reluctant to wade into the details for achieving lasting peace in the Middle East or for holding Vladimir Putin to task for Russia’s unbridled aggression against Ukraine.
In a world deemed existentially dangerous, then only war and the threat of war, the flawed argument goes, will keep the nation safe when morals no longer matter. Seemingly, Mr. Trump sees the world this way. In his inaugural address, the president stressed his responsibility to “defend our country from threats and invasions…at a level that nobody has ever seen before.” Such martial rhetoric has been reinforced this past year by Secretary of Defense (“War”) Pete Hegseth who, in critics’ eyes, views military morality through the lens of “might makes right.”
In our heated, if not fractured, political moment, debating the value of morals guiding our nation’s foreign policy will be a difficult task. Indeed, even finding consensus today over what we mean by “moral behavior” seems a fraught enterprise. But the discussion is needed. Surely, President Barak Obama’s drone-based “targeted killing program” or Joseph Biden’s “unconditional” support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s exterminationist policies against the Palestinians warrant examination, if not condemnation. So too the militarized actions of the Trump administration this past year. In short, effective American leadership is moral leadership, both at home and abroad.
Moreover, a nation broken free of its ethical moorings will engender only resentment and retaliation on the world stage. In such a scenario, a reliance on military force likely will grow as fears of America losing its “greatness” feed into themselves. If the Trump administration spies a dangerous world beyond its shores, then a foreign policy lacking in any moral principles hardly will dispel those threats, as real as they may be. Indeed, those threats will likely only escalate.
If we can agree with the proposition that power and morals can—and should—reinforce each other, then the opening year of the second Trump administration serve as a warning sign for the coming implications of a nation’s foreign policy bereft of moral criteria. Militarization surely will follow immorality.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump 'Sends a Dangerous Message' With 'America First' Diplomat Purge, Says Union
The American Foreign Service Association said the move "tells our public servants that loyalty to country is no longer enough—that experience and oath to the Constitution take a back seat to political loyalty."
Dec 23, 2025
Following Politico's Friday reporting that "the Trump administration is recalling a number of career ambassadors appointed by former President Joe Biden," several news outlets confirmed Monday that the purge is affecting at least 29 diplomats.
"This is a standard process in any administration," an unnamed senior official at the US Department of State claimed to multiple journalists. "An ambassador is a personal representative of the president, and it is the president's right to ensure that he has individuals in these countries who advance the 'America First' agenda."
However, Nikki Gamer, a spokesperson for the diplomats' union, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), told the New York Times that "those affected report being notified abruptly, typically by phone, with no explanation provided."
"That method is highly irregular," she said. "The lack of transparency and process breaks sharply with long-standing norms."
Gamer told Reuters that "abrupt, unexplained recalls reflect the same pattern of institutional sabotage and politicization our survey data shows is already harming morale, effectiveness, and US credibility abroad."
In a statement, the AFSA added: "To remove these senior diplomats without cause or justification sends a dangerous message. It tells our public servants that loyalty to country is no longer enough—that experience and oath to the Constitution take a back seat to political loyalty."
According to the Associated Press:
Africa is the continent most affected by the removals, with ambassadors from 13 countries being removed: Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, and Uganda.
Second is Asia, with ambassadorial changes coming to six countries: Fiji, Laos, the Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and Vietnam affected.
Four countries in Europe (Armenia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Slovakia) are affected; as are two each in the Middle East (Algeria and Egypt); South and Central Asia (Nepal and Sri Lanka); and the Western Hemisphere (Guatemala and Suriname).
Noting that there are about 80 vacant ambassadorships, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) accused President Donald Trump of "giving away US leadership to China and Russia by removing qualified career ambassadors who serve faithfully no matter who's in power."
Eric Rubin, a retired career diplomat and former AFSA president, similarly highlighted that over half of US embassies won't have a confirmed ambassador, which he called "a serious insult to the countries affected, and a huge gift to China."
"This has never happened in the 101-year history of the US Foreign Service," Rubin told CNN. "Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. But every president has kept most career professional ambassadors in place until their successors are confirmed by the Senate."
"The ambassadors who have been dismissed will mostly have to retire, which means the State Department will lose a large number of our most senior, experienced, and accomplished professionals," he explained. "This is bad for our diplomacy, bad for our national security, and bad for our influence in the world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pope Leo Presses Trump to End Military Escalation Against Venezuela
"So often, who suffers in these situations is the people, not the authorities," the first American pope said as another regime change war looms.
Dec 03, 2025
Amid escalating threats from the White House in recent days, Pope Leo XIV pleaded for President Donald Trump to pursue diplomacy with Venezuela rather than another regime change war.
"It is better to search for ways of dialogue, or perhaps pressure, including economic pressure," said the first American pope as he returned to Rome from Lebanon.
Since September, the Trump administration has launched airstrikes against at least 22 boats mostly in the Southern Caribbean that have extrajudicially killed at least 83 people. While the administration has claimed these people are "narcoterrorists" from Venezuela, it has provided no evidence to support this.
Trump said he had ordered the closing of Venezuela’s airspace on Saturday, which has left many observers holding their breath in expectation of military action against the South American nation.
As Reuters reported Monday, Trump also offered safe passage to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last month if he left the country, suggesting that regime change is the administration’s ultimate goal.
"On one hand, it seems there was a call between the two presidents," said the pope, referring to that ultimatum from Trump last month. "On the other hand, there is the danger, there is the possibility there will be some activity, some [military] operation."
"The voices that come from the United States, they change with a certain frequency," Leo added.
The pope has been a frequent critic of the Trump administration’s policies since he was elected earlier this year, with harsh rebukes issued towards the White House's attacks on immigrants.
While the pope did not denounce the idea of US-imposed regime change in Venezuela entirely, he said it should search for other means "if that is what they want to do in the United States.”
The US has notably already applied a great deal of "economic pressure" to Venezuela, via a regime of crippling sanctions that are considered one of the major causes of the nation's economic instability in recent years.
On Tuesday, Abigail Hall, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, warned that "a US invasion, however framed, would impose steep costs on both nations."
"For the United States, an attempt at regime change in Venezuela would likely be another foray into failed foreign policy, with all the costs that go with it," she said. "A destabilized Venezuela could also trigger another wave of migration across the region, straining neighboring countries and potentially reaching US shores."
"For Venezuelans, the costs would be even greater," she added. "Beyond the immediate human toll of conflict, the long-term costs are incalculable. Even if Maduro were removed, a chaotic transition could destroy prospects for rebuilding Venezuela’s institutions, economy, and civil society."
Amid Trump's latest series of threats, Pope Leo echoed this warning aboard the papal plane. He said Venezuela's bishops are "looking for ways to calm the situation" and pursue "the good of the people, because so often who suffers in these situations is the people, not the authorities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy