Syed Ali Zia Jaffery
@alizia1992.bsky.social
Deputy Director, Center for Security, Strategy and Policy Research. Associate Editor, Pakistan Politico. Former VF, Stimson Center. Alum: Wilson Center and CNS. Bylines: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, National Interest, The Diplomat, Atlantic Council
In my latest piece for @APLNofficial ,I argue that, the disintegration of arms control and the proliferation of emerging and disruptive technologies, unilateral failsafe reviews could act as a veritable confidence-building measure. apln.network/analysis/comme…
apln.network
"As an NPT state party being the target of nuclear-laden threats, Iran has rightly stressed the need for codifying & legalizing negative security assurances" - the commitment that nuclear states won't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
Iran's positions at the NPT Review Conference are rational. Ignoring them would weaken the treaty
Tehran should be engaged with on non-proliferation issues, not bombed and threatened with annihilation.
thebulletin.org
Iran has not withdrawn from the NPT and continues to abide by it. To save the non-proliferation regime, global powers must engage with these rational positions rather than resorting to military force, @alizia1992.bsky.social writes. 5/5 Read the full analysis in @thebulletin.org:
Iran's positions at the NPT Review Conference are rational. Ignoring them would weaken the treaty
Tehran should be engaged with on non-proliferation issues, not bombed and threatened with annihilation.
thebulletin.org
Recent military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites don't just risk escalation—they threaten the structural integrity of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In a new piece, Syed Ali Zia Jaffery (@alizia1992.bsky.social) explains why ignoring Iran's NPT positions weakens the global treaty. 🧵 1/
I have penned a few pieces on Iran and the ongoing RevCon. The first one, just published by @thebulletin.org , looks at Iran's positions on core issues at the RevCon. It argues that they are rational, necessitating engagement, not confrontation. thebulletin.org/2026/05/iran...
Iran's positions at the NPT Review Conference are rational. Ignoring them would weaken the treaty
Tehran should be engaged with on non-proliferation issues, not bombed and threatened with annihilation.
thebulletin.org
My take for @PoliticoPak "First, by stepping up as a facilitator and a mediator in the midst of a multi-party, intricate war, Pakistan demonstrated that it is becoming a much more confident middle power..." pakistanpolitico.com/mdtn/
What Does Pakistan Gain From a U.S.-Iran Ceasefire? - Pakistanpolitico
Syed Ali Zia Jaffery
pakistanpolitico.com
Trump might start thinking that ground operations, if carried out, would be successful. He could also say one of the primary objectives of the war was to rescue the pilot, and we achieved that with flying colors.
This is a really important point. I would argue that Hegseth's impact on actual defense strategy and policy is going to be minimal. But his impact on the military as an institution, and on civil-military relations, is already profound and negative.
Bill Kristol@billkristolbulwark.bsky.social · 6mo agoHegseth's repeated moves to purge the military of anyone not judged a Trump loyalist should set off major alarms. But, because Hegseth presents as such a buffoon, his role in Trump's authoritarian project is underrated. wapo.st/3OfHHck
Negotiations are a big no-no when one of the parties is looking for every opportunity to kill the other side's negotiators. Therefore, the U.S. needs to take significant steps to assuage Iran's concerns. So far, the U.S. is in no mood to do that.
This is what Prof. Vali said about Iran's Mosaic Strategy on our program yesterday:
Out Now on the Center for Security, Strategy and Policy Research , Ejaz Haider and Prof. Dr. Vali Nasr discuss the ongoing Iran war, Iran's retaliatory strategy, Trump's options, and the prospect of de-escalation. youtu.be/j7xT5AAnjKo?...
InFocus With Ejaz Haider EP86: Iran's Strategy of Mosaic Defence
YouTube video by CSSPR
youtu.be
"The literature on coercion also informs us that states refuse to comply when coercers put too many demands on the table." My take for The Friday Times www.thefridaytimes.com/30-Mar-2026/...
The Unreasonableness Of Washington’s 15-Point Proposal
US demands on Iran, conveyed via Pakistan, are seen as excessive and illegal, making a negotiated ceasefire unlikely amid ongoing conflict
thefridaytimes.com
The partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz is being wrongly framed as a cause despite the fact that it is a consequence of the war imposed on Iran.
What should be worrying for the West is that at no rung has Iran allowed the U.S. and Israel to achieve escalation dominance. This partly explains why it doesn't feel the need to de-escalate.
Today, Israel and the U.S. ignored what Schelling called the focal point. Now, it will be curtains, unfortunately.
In a piece for the @BulletinAtomic last year, I argued why John Finer's remarks about our imaginary long-range ballistic missiles, as well as the sanctions that followed, will be counterproductive. Tulsi Gabbard has made similar remarks a while back! thebulletin.org/2025/01/why-...
Why US sanctions against Pakistan’s ballistic missile program might backfire
The United States could avoid the undesired effects of its sanctions by engaging in more substantive conversations on security with Pakistan.
thebulletin.org
1/4 IR research on so-called “taboo” weapons often focuses on individual systems or very limited comparisons. In new @jpeaceresearch.bsky.social work w/Dave Allison and @laurensukin.bsky.social, we compare aversions across a broader range of weapons (6). #OpenAccess: doi.org/10.1093/jopr...
An important, timely conversation between Drs. Christopher Clary and Asfandyar Mir. Force without assurance doesn't engender coercive effects.
Christopher Clary@claryc.bsky.social · 6mo agoI think readers interested in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and US policy toward the region will want to stick around to the end of this conversation with Asfandyar Mir.
The attack on Iran's Pars gas facility is a serious escalatory step.
The use of brute force by Washington and Tel Aviv against Tehran means that they don't seek to coerce that country. If anything, they aim to obliterate it. For coercion to be effective, assurances of non-action upon compliance are also necessary. No such assurances have been given to Iran.
A long-simmering confrontation between Pakistan and the Taliban has now crossed a dangerous threshold. The stakes are rising on both sides of the Durand Line.
Open War at the Durand Line: Can Pakistan's Escalation Compel a Taliban Recalculation?
When Pakistan declared "open war" with Afghanistan in February 2026 and struck Taliban military installations in Kabul and Kandahar, it crossed a
warontherocks.com
Are the U.S. and Israel really hoping that by killing every important leader, they will find someone palatable and acceptable to take over the reins in Iran?
In this short Stack, I argue why killing leaders is deadly dangerous. open.substack.com/pub/alizia19...
Killing Leaders Won't Cut It
The year 2026 has been unkind to “unacceptable” leaders.
open.substack.com
When leaders are abducted and killed, one can kiss goodbye to negotiations and diplomacy. A very dangerous precedent is being set.
The U.S. being surprised at Iran's retaliation is particularly surprising! Iran had literally informed everyone about its targeting strategy.
