Front and Center: June 30, 2025

EVEN AS ISRAELI-IRANIAN TENSIONS ARE EASED FOR NOW, THE UNITED STATES MUST ADDRESS WAR POWERS

It has been a long few days fraught with uncertainty about what might happen between Israel, Iran and the United States. This conflict seems to have cooled for now with the announcement of a ceasefire, but what matters now is what happens next.  

The Center has repeatedly made the point that it is absolutely critical that the United States and other countries use this time for diplomacy that can lead to a more stable peace. Intelligence reports that assessed that U.S. bombings of three Iranian nuclear sites last Saturday were not as successful as the Trump administration claimed are further proof that the only way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is through diplomacy. Otherwise, we will be in an endless cycle of bombing — and Iran rebuilding — its nuclear facilities. Iran could even take the additional step and weaponize its nuclear material.

In his latest post for the Center‘s Nukes of Hazard blog, Senior Policy Director John Erath addresses what a lasting peace agreement could look like. Such a deal could have three pillars, he writes: an immediate halt to military action; an immediate halt to Iran’s enrichment activity and renewed agreement to the verification measures implemented under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal; and the beginning of a new international agreement that would prohibit every country from enriching uranium beyond levels necessary for energy generation and medicine.

It is also absolutely critical that Congress use this time to reassert its sole constitutional authority to declare war before President Donald Trump drops more bombs that could push the United States closer to war. The Constitution is unambiguous — only Congress has the power to declare war. That’s not just a formality — it’s a safeguard against hasty or unilateral decisions that can drag us into prolonged conflict.

Our experts have been briefing Congress and the media about all of the important national security issues surrounding this conflict since day one, and continue to do so. Here are some resources and interviews from our experts you might find useful; you can also see all of the press we’ve done on this conflict to date.

RESOURCES: Fact Sheet: Facilities Related to Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program | Fact Sheet: The Iran Deal, Then and Now | Nukes of Hazard podcast: Exploring Iran’s Nuclear Program | Fact Sheet: Israel’s Nuclear Inventory

WATCH: Ceasefire holds steady with a looming concern of Iran’s nuclear capabilities | Trump announces Israel and Iran agree to ceasefire | Trump’s war: Can US impose its will on weakened Iran? | Breaking news: Trump: Iran’s nuclear sites ‘completely obliterated’ | Trump’s two-week timeline for diplomacy | Israel’s nuclear arsenal: The open secret giving it regional leverage

READ: FactCheck.Org: Iranian Nuclear Program Damaged, Not ‘Obliterated’ by U.S. Attack | Hegseth says Iran’s nuclear program was ‘obliterated.’ What we know so far about how much damage was actually done | Ask Politifact: Was Iran ‘weeks away’ from having a nuclear weapon, as Trump said? | What is the nuclear world order and how did we get here? | What to know about Israel’s nuclear weapons program

LISTEN: Bloomberg Businessweek Daily, June 25 | Bloomberg Businessweek Daily, June 20

RUSSIA, UKRAINE CONTINUE EXCHANGING STRIKES AS AID TO UKRAINE REMAINS UNCERTAIN

On June 1, Ukraine surprised Russia with an advanced drone attack deep into Russian soil, thousands of miles from Ukraine, that damaged and even destroyed multiple Russian bombers. In a post on the Center‘s Nukes of Hazard blog, Senior Policy Director John Erath explains what the attack means for nuclear deterrence beyond the clear demonstration that Ukraine still has cards to play in this war.

Ukraine’s attacks have two strategic implications, he writes: that Russia’s persistent nuclear threats against Ukraine made Ukraine more willing — not less willing — to risk huge action, and that nuclear assets are vulnerable. “As governments of other nuclear states contemplate spending billions for modernization of nuclear forces, they should heed this lesson. Strategic forces can be vulnerable to creative, low-cost attacks, and basing national security on nuclear capabilities can prove a costly error.”

Russia retaliated against Ukraine days later, prompting President Donald Trump to compare the two countries to children on a playground and saying they would be “better off” if they “fight for a while.”

Last week, NATO leaders met in The Netherlands and while they each agreed to increase NATO defense spending to 5% of their GDPs, they did not focus on aid to Ukraine. Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Wednesday and while he did not commit to further U.S. aid to Ukraine, he suggested the United States may send Patriot missile systems their way. NATO allies have committed the equivalent of $40 billion to Ukraine so far this year, more than they had committed this time last year.

Meanwhile, Russia is set to “mass produce,” or so it claims, its new “hypersonic” missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. It is also calling on Iran — which had hosted many Russian nuclear scientists until days before the U.S. attack — to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency to maintain peace in the Middle East. It has also offered to take Iran’s enriched uranium as part of hypothetical peace negotiations.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN MAINTAIN NUCLEAR PARITY AS CURRENT TENSIONS EASE

In late May, India staged a large air combat exercise near the Pakistan border, not long after a dramatic aerial clash with Pakistani fighters. The move came just days before India announced it would purchase new airborne surveillance platforms, likely aimed at better tracking both Pakistani and Chinese military movements.

Islamabad denounced the moves as destabilizing and warned that they could raise the risk of nuclear conflict in a future crisis. Meanwhile, as Pakistan marked 27 years since its nuclear tests, officials used the moment to reassert the country’s nuclear deterrent and rally public support.

India and Pakistan continue to possess roughly equal-sized arsenals: approximately 180 warheads for India and 170 for Pakistan, according to the latest findings from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. India, however, has begun deploying newer canisterized missiles capable of carrying multiple warheads. Pakistani planners, meanwhile, continue to emphasize battlefield nuclear weapons in response to India’s growing conventional and missile advantages.

CHINA’S ARSENAL GREW BY 20% LAST YEAR; BEIJING UNVEILS NEW CAPABILITIES

China’s nuclear arsenal continues to grow and is now estimated at 600 warheads, a nearly 20% jump since last year, according to SIPRI’s new report. The Chinese increase accounted for nearly all of the growth in world nuclear arsenals. Chinese officials had little to say about the updated figures. When asked, the Foreign Ministry responded with the diplomatic equivalent of a shrug.

That silence came as Chinese state media published new details about the DF-5, an aging but still active intercontinental ballistic missile that reportedly now carries multiple independently-targetable warheads. Beijing also unveiled what it says is the world’s first AI-assisted nuclear warhead inspector, though few outside China seem convinced it signals genuine transparency.

Separately, the International Atomic Energy Agency held its first-ever training course on nuclear law in China this month, part of a broader push to pull Beijing into more formalized nuclear governance conversations. Whether China actually wants to be part of that conversation remains to be seen.

NORTH KOREA CONDUCTS NUCLEAR SIMULATION AND DEEPENS TIES WITH RUSSIA

North Korea conducted yet another nuclear strike simulation in early June, launching what it claimed was a tactical missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The launch appeared timed to coincide with U.S.–South Korea military cooperation efforts.

Separately, new satellite imagery and reporting from U.S. officials point to expanded uranium enrichment activity at the Yongbyon complex, North Korea’s aging but still central nuclear production site. Meanwhile, a new analysis from the U.S. Congress’s Korea Study Group now estimates that Pyongyang may possess 50–60 nuclear warheads, with enough fissile material for approximately 90 warheads. North Korea also continued aligning itself rhetorically and financially with Russia. In addition to condemning the recent U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Pyongyang reportedly received fresh funding from Moscow to support elements of its nuclear weapons program.

TRUMP, CONGRESS, READY TO SPEND BIG ON NUCLEAR PROGRAMS

The Department of Defense finally began releasing budget request documents this week. As a reminder, there may be conflicting reports about what the budget total is. The reason for this is that the Trump administration assumes passage of the Big Beautiful Bill Act in its budget request for the Pentagon; the bill is still making its way through Congress. While program details are still trickling out, what we can see is where the Trump administration plans to focus its nuclear weapons spending. Programs that saw large potential increases include:

• The Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program. Read more from Executive Director John Tierney in Newsweek: Where’s the Accountability? Congress Must Get Answers Before Spending More on Missile Program
• The W93 warhead program which will be used by both U.S. and U.K. ballistic missile submarines. Read more from former intern Shane Ward in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: America’s new multibillion-dollar warhead is a great deal for the British
• The nuclear-armed submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) which will be used by U.S. attack submarines currently not carrying nuclear weapons. Read more from Senior Policy Director John Erath in Just Security: Why Congress Shouldn’t Fund a New Sea-Launched Nuke
• So-called “theater” ballistic missile defense like Aegis and THAAD.

The release of this legislation likely means that the Senate and House Armed Services Committees will soon act on the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. Conversations with well-connected staff indicate the Senate Armed Services Committee may take up the bill the week of July 7, while their House counterparts may go the week after.

‘GOLDEN DOME’ GETS LEGISLATIVE BACKING

Armed Services Republicans in both the House and Senate introduced S. 2142, the Ground and Orbital Launched Defeat of Emergent Nuclear Destruction and Other Missile Engagements (GOLDEN DOME) Act this week. The legislation, led by Sens. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) alongside Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN-08), authorizes $23 billion from President Trump’s extremely ambitious ballistic missile defense project.

This spending is in addition to the $25 billion already included as part of the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which Congress is still considering. It is likely that the GOLDEN DOME Act will be attached to the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which Congressional committees are expected to consider next month.

Despite Trump administration claims that Golden Dome will cost less than $200 billion, the so-called “open architecture” of the proposed system leaves endless opportunity for exploding costs.  Announcements about the legislation, and the broader Golden Dome system, also invoke both Israel’s Iron Dome, which defends a nation a fraction the size of the United States, and President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” missile defense system which was abandoned due to skyrocketing costs and sputtering performance.

Executive Director John Tierney, who has been a critic of nationwide missile defense systems since serving on defense oversight committees in Congress, told CNN in March the Golden Dome is “a joke” and “basically a scam.”

“Strategically, it doesn’t make any sense. Technically, it doesn’t make any sense. Economically, it doesn’t make any sense.”

Our new Golden Dome fact sheet breaks down what we know about this Trump-era proposal, its technical feasibility and why experts like us are highly skeptical about its strategic value.

STRENGTHENING BIOSECURITY EFFORTS WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Communications Associate Farah Sonde stressed the importance of labs, scientists and universities continuing biosecurity measures in the absence of federal regulations in her newest blog post for the Center‘s Nukes of Hazard blog. Sonde highlights how shifting priorities in the Trump administration have weakened American health. “Assuming that the administration will continue its current trend of obfuscation and deregulation,” she writes, “the United States is uniquely vulnerable today to the effects of a biological weapon.”

Sonde argues that, in the absence of federal guidance, laboratories and individual scientists must work proactively to incorporate international standards of biosecurity into their classrooms and laboratories to strengthen our national security against potential threats.