Can Iran negotiate its way out of a U.S. attack?

Summary

---

Sources & Methods – Episode Summary

Podcast: Sources & Methods (NPR)
Episode: “Can Iran negotiate its way out of a U.S. attack?”
Air Date: February 5, 2026
Host: Mary Louise Kelly
Guests: Greg Myre (National Security Correspondent), Jeff Brumfiel (Science and Security Correspondent)

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into two of the world's biggest national security stories: the high-stakes, U.S.-Iran standoff—with threats of military action as negotiations loom—and the expiration of New START, the last U.S.-Russia nuclear weapons treaty. The panel assesses the underlying interests, shifting strategies, and long-term risks shaping both crises, while reflecting on the broader global context of arms control and geopolitical instability.

---

Main Discussion Topics and Key Insights

1. U.S.-Iran Tensions and Negotiations

• Setting the Scene (00:31–02:15):
  The U.S. has amassed a "very large, substantial force" near Iran, signaling a credible threat of attack if negotiations fail. Talks are now set for Oman, deemed a quieter, less conspicuous venue preferred by Iran for sensitive discussions.

  “It’s a little more low key in Oman…The Iranians didn’t want a lot of media, a lot of clamor, a lot of attention.” – Greg Myre (01:46)

• How Did We Get Here? (02:15–05:36):
  The latest escalation originates from mass protests in Iran (late December), which drew a brutal government crackdown—over 6,000 killed, numbers possibly underreported by human rights groups (03:00). The U.S. initially voiced support for protesters, but after the crackdown, attention shifted to a possible military response—ostensibly to pressure Iran over its nuclear program.

  • Notable Moment:

    “That would be more than double the number of people who died on September 11th here in the U.S.—it’s just staggering.” – Mary Louise Kelly (03:00)

• What Are the U.S.’s Aims? (05:36–07:56):
  Unclear whether the goal is deterring Iran’s nuclear ambitions, punishing leaders/security forces, or seeking regime change. Trump administration also wants Iran to rein in its missile program and sever ties to proxy networks like Hamas and Hezbollah—a much higher bar than past negotiations.

  “…Trump, as the president who tore up the last one, would certainly want to be able to say that he got a much better deal than Barack Obama did in 2015.” – Greg Myre (06:53)

• Is a Deal Possible? (06:53–09:18):
  A deal is plausible if the focus remains strictly nuclear. However, expansion to missiles and proxies could scuttle talks. Iran, weakened by internal and regional strife, may be seeking a way out—but appears unwilling to make fundamental changes.

  “…the only thing that worked really for Iran was its missiles. And I just can’t imagine they would give those up easily.” – Jeff Brumfiel (07:56)

• Iran’s Perspective and Risks of War (08:16–09:36):
  Leadership signals it wants to avoid war, but remains combative. Any U.S. strike could spiral into a regional conflict:

  “Iran is that threat, saying this would be a regional war if the U.S. strikes Iran this time.” – Greg Myre (09:18)

---

2. Expiration of the U.S.-Russia New START Treaty

• What Was New START? (10:50–12:09):
  The last major arms control agreement between U.S. and Russia, capping each at 1,550 warheads—a dramatic reduction from Cold War highs of 12,000. It also included robust verification, regular notifications, and onsite inspections to build transparency and trust.

  “They sent inspectors out to the sites… going around to each other’s most securely guarded nuclear facilities and counting warheads.” – Jeff Brumfiel (12:40)

• Why Did It Lapse? (13:17–14:07):
  The treaty, extended once in 2021, expired following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and collapse in bilateral relations—making further negotiations impossible.

• Changing Nuclear Landscape: Rise of China (14:15–15:59):
  China is rapidly ramping up its arsenal, aiming for parity with U.S./Russia. The Biden and Trump administrations argue that any new treaty must include China, but China resists, citing its smaller arsenal.

  “It’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China…” – Greg Myre, paraphrasing Sec. of State Marco Rubio (15:21)

• Practical Changes and “Hand-shake” Extensions (15:59–17:32):
  Experts say neither the U.S. nor Russia could rapidly expand nuclear arsenals—the golden age of arms-build up is gone. Putin has proposed a less formal extension, but U.S. concerns about China may stand in the way.

  “…this is a handshake agreement without all the inspections and technicalities of the original New START treaty. So I don’t think there’s a lot to lose by agreeing to limit forces.” – Jeff Brumfiel (17:32)

---

3. The Fate and Logic of Arms Control in a Chaotic World

• Historical Echoes: Cold War Lessons (19:26–21:38):
  Crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis spurred past arms control—chaos doesn’t preclude diplomacy. Yet current leaders take a more cavalier approach to nuclear threats than their Cold War counterparts.

  “…the leaders talk about nukes in a much looser fashion and kind of hinting, or even…threatening about threatening to use them. You know, that’s just something you didn’t see back in the Cold War.” – Greg Myre (21:39)

• Changing Alliances and the Risk of Proliferation (22:50–24:51):
  The breakdown of alliances like NATO could prompt countries (e.g., South Korea, European states) to pursue their own weapons. The existence of U.S. security umbrellas has historically limited proliferation.

  “If the U.S. suddenly says…we can’t guarantee that we’re going to come to your aid…South Korea…may want to…consider nuclear weapons. This is how a nuclear arms race begins.” – Greg Myre (22:50)

  • Notable Quote:

    “Arms control experts are extremely worried…once more and more countries get nuclear weapons…the chance that someone’s going to use one somewhere or another become much more fraught and complicated.” – Jeff Brumfiel (24:03)

• Fun Fact:

  “Bang for your buck—that actually comes from nuclear weapons.” – Jeff Brumfiel (24:51)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote/Paraphrase | |-----------|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:00 | Mary Louise Kelly | “That would be more than double the number of people who died on September 11th…” | | 06:53 | Greg Myre | “Trump…would certainly want to be able to say that he got a much better deal than Barack Obama did in 2015.” | | 07:56 | Jeff Brumfiel | “The only thing that worked really for Iran was its missiles. And I just can't imagine they would give those up easily.” | | 12:40 | Jeff Brumfiel | “…they sent inspectors out to the sites… to each other’s most securely guarded nuclear facilities and counting warheads.” | | 15:21 | Greg Myre (Rubio) | "...it's impossible to do something that doesn't include China." | | 17:32 | Jeff Brumfiel | “This is a handshake agreement without all the inspections...” | | 21:39 | Greg Myre | “The leaders talk about nukes in a much looser fashion…that’s just something you didn’t see back in the Cold War.” | | 22:50 | Greg Myre | “This is how a nuclear arms race begins…” | | 24:03 | Jeff Brumfiel | “…the chance that someone’s going to use [nuclear weapons]…become much more fraught and complicated.” | | 24:51 | Jeff Brumfiel | “Bang for your buck—that actually comes from nuclear weapons.” |

---

OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) Segment

Mary Louise Kelly (25:26): Farewells the CIA World Factbook—a staple for quick, authoritative global facts that predated Wikipedia.

Greg Myre (26:50): Reminisces reporting from South Africa’s nuclear facility after the country voluntarily dismantled its arsenal—the only nation to do so.

Jeff Brumfiel (28:03): Shares analysis of satellite imagery showing Iran re-burying tunnels at its nuclear facilities, underscoring their preparedness against potential U.S. airstrikes.

---

Conclusion

This episode paints a sobering picture of global security: a brewing crisis with Iran, the end of major nuclear treaties between the U.S. and Russia, the rise of new nuclear powers, and the fraying of old alliances. The panel cautions that in times of instability, arms control—though historically rooted in moments of peril—faces extraordinary obstacles and new risks today.

---

Transcript

[NPR Sponsor/Promotional Voice]

Valentine's Day is coming up and the perfect gift for the NPR lover in your life is waiting at the NPR shop. From cozy sweaters and mugs made for slow mornings to our tiny desk hoodie, there's something for every NPR fan. Each purchase supports public media and the journalism you love. Find something [e-mail].

[Greg Myre]

It'S not an idle threat. There is a very large, substantial force that's been assembled in the region.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

President Trump. Trump says he'll act with speed and violence against Iran if he doesn't get a deal. With negotiations set for Friday, can Iran talk its way out of a US Attack? And how much more dangerous is the world now that the last U.S. russia nuclear weapons treaty has expired? This is SOURCES and METHODS from npr. I'm Mary Louise Kelly. Each week we go deep on the biggest national security stories in the news. And to do that today, I want to welcome back national security correspondent Greg Myre. Hey, Greg.

[Greg Myre]

Hi, Mary Louise.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

And science and security correspondent Jeff Brumfiel, or as I like to think of him, NPR's resident expert on all things fission and fusion.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Sounds about right to me.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

So let's start in the Middle east at last check. And we are recording this just after noon Eastern on Thursday. At last check. It looks as though US And Iranian negotiators will head to Oman on Friday. Tomorrow, Trump says he wants a deal to rein in Iran nuclear program and its military capabilities or else. Greg, start with Oman. Why Oman? Because we were initially told they were going to get together in Istanbul.

[Greg Myre]

Yeah. The Iranians wanted to move it from Turkey to Oman. It seems the Iranians wanted that change of venue. It's a little more low key in Oman. If it was in Istanbul, Turkey, you'd have a lot of media, a lot of clamor, a lot of attention. I think the Iranians didn't want that. Oman is definitely more of a low key setting.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

A little smaller. Got it.

[Greg Myre]

Exactly. So I think that's it. But it shouldn't affect the substance really of the talk.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

So let's go to the substance. And I want to ask the how did we get here? Question, but I fear that will end with us going all the way back to 1953 and the US engineered coup in Iran. So why don't Greg, why don't you just walk us through this latest escalation began a few weeks ago, protests.

[Greg Myre]

Yeah. End of December, Iranians took to the streets in huge numbers, perhaps the largest protest against the Islamic leadership since the revolution in 1979. They grew bigger and bigger. And then Iran just cracked down brutally. The estimates of those killed are over 6,000 according to human rights groups.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Can we just pause on that number for a second? 6,000. And the human rights groups trying to monitor this say that may well be an undercount because it's really hard to get reliable intel on this because the Iranian government isn't sharing anything. But that would be more than double the number of people who died on September 11th here in the U.S. it's just staggering.

[Greg Myre]

Absolutely. And again, we're talking all of these deaths occurred in a pretty compressed period, most of them in like a two day period. So the government shut down the Internet, cut off a lot of phones connections and just unleash the security forces in a massive way. And it did have the desired effect. It did largely end the protests. And for the past couple weeks, we haven't seen Iranians take to the street.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Okay, so we have these huge protests in Iran. We have a brutal crackdown by the leaders of Iran. And how did we get from that to suddenly there's a US Armada, to use President Trump's word, building up off the coast of Iran? Greg?

[Greg Myre]

Yeah. It wasn't a direct line because as these protests were playing out in January, President Trump said the US Would support the protesters. That seemed to be the focus. It was never quite clear what he would do. And then we saw the massive crackdown. So it was not clear what was going to happen, if the US could do anything to help the protesters at that point, or was this round over. But then it has sort of morphed as the US Built up this military force off the coast of Iran and throughout the Middle east. It seemed like some confrontation was still building up, even though the protests were gone. And so it sort of morphed or changed into talk about nuclear negotiations and the threat, which is a big pivot.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

From human rights, and we're going to come help you Iranian protesters to. And I'm sending an aircraft carrier and a bunch of support ships to the coast off of Iran.

[Greg Myre]

Absolutely. And it doesn't seem like the protesters, their grievances are on the agenda in these talks in Amman. So as you say, yes, it's a big pivot. The threat of force is still there. The US has been gradually assembling this force for close to a month at this point. It's really hard to overstate what a massive logistical operation it is just to put all this stuff in place. It's not an idle threat. There is a very large, substantial force that's been assembled in the region.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

I guess my basic question is, why? What is the US Interest here? I mean, President Trump, like, to be fair, many American presidents who came before he, frames his policy in terms of what's in it for the U.S. what's in it for the U.S. here?

[Greg Myre]

Well, he has not spelled that out clearly. It could be several things. It could be a military attack to take out the head of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who's been there for 37 years at this point. But that wouldn't bring about massive, sweeping regime change. It is a big regime that has many components to it. You could go after the security forces, the Revolutionary Guards, and others who carried out this slaughter of protesters. Or you could hit at Iran's nuclear program, as we saw last June when the US and Israel teamed up and for 12 days bombed nuclear sites and related sites as well. So it could be any or all of the above, or it could be just massive pressure, pressure to try to get a negotiated nuclear deal. And Trump, as the president who tore up the last one, would certainly want to be able to say that he got a much better deal than Barack Obama did in 2015.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Is there a realistic shot at a new deal?

[Greg Myre]

Oh, I think there's a realistic shot if both sides decide they want one. Iran has been greatly weakened in the past couple years by the wars in the region that have set back Iran itself and its proxies. It would be looking for a way out of this immediate crisis, and therefore, it may be willing to make some concessions. But it's pretty clear the Trump administration wants not only major concessions on the nuclear program, they also want Iran to get rid of its missiles, which is really, it's one way of fighting back against the U.S. and Israel. And it also wants Iran to cut off its support for its proxy network, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. And those are things ir. So if it stays narrowly focused on the nuclear issue, then, yes, a deal is possible. If it gets into these broader issues that the US Wants, then a deal becomes much less likely.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

That's exactly kind of what happened with the last deal, right? They agreed to narrow it on nuclear issues only, and Iran showed a great willingness to do that. But I think, especially after this latest conflict with Israel, the only thing that worked really for Iran was its missiles. And I just can't imagine they would give those up easily.

[Greg Myre]

And the one other thing I would add is Iran is going to make demands as well if it's willing to make concessions on its nuclear program or anything else. It's going to want something in return, almost certainly some sort of sanctions relief. So would President Trump be willing to give some concession to Iran after it's just slaughtered thousands of these civilian protesters? We also have to factor in what the Iranians are thinking at this point. And I spoke about this with Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute. And he spoke about hearing a speech this past weekend from the supreme leader in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yes, I can see he wants to.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Avoid war, but I can't see. I didn't hear a man who's ready to change course. I'm not listening to a man who says, yeah, we've been wrong in the.

[Greg Myre]

Way we've handled our nuclear program.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

So they're essentially engaged in what I.

[Greg Myre]

Can only call a crisis management. Day to day, avoid war, engage in rhetoric against the other side, warn them.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

That you're going to hit them hard this time.

[Greg Myre]

And Iran is that threat, saying this would be a regional war if the US Strikes Iran this time. And certainly there is that possibility of escalation. So you have to factor in, is this going to be a one day strike, a one week battle or a month long battle that draws in other countries?

[Mary Louise Kelly]

We are going to take a short break. When we come back, we will pivot from the new nuclear agreement that Trump has seeking with Iran to another nuclear treaty that has fallen by the wayside. That's ahead on Sources and Methods from npr.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

This week on Up First, a high stakes funding fight over ice tactics. Can Democrats negotiate any real change or will the Trump administration refuse to budge? Get up, get informed and get on with your morning with up first, the top three stories you need to start your day. Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get podcasts.

[NPR Sponsor/Promotional Voice]

This is Tanya Moseley, co host of FRESH air. You'll see your favorite actors, directors and comedians on late night TV shows or YouTube.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

But what you get with FRESH AIR.

[NPR Sponsor/Promotional Voice]

Is a deep dive. Spend some quality time with people like Billie Eilish Questlove, Ariana Grande, Stephen Colbert and so many more. We ask questions you won't hear asked anywhere else. Listen to the FRESH AIR podcast from NPR and whyy.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

We're back with Greg Myre and Jeff Brumfiel. And Jeff, let's go to this nuclear treaty that lapsed as of midnight last night. I'm talking about New Start. New Start was the last of what used to be many agreements between the US And Russia that limited the size and the scope and the deployment of their nuclear arsenals. What is New start? What does it stand for? For why did this deal get signed in the first place?

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Right, so New START stands for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It was a follow on to a treaty that was actually signed by President George H.W. bush and Mikhail Gorbachev called START 1. And new START was negotiated under President Obama. The lead negotiator was a woman named Rose Gottemoller. She's now at Stanford University. And we had a little chat about it. She described it as the. In this decades long effort to bring down the number of nukes on each.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Side, the New START treaty brought us down to 1,550 deployed warheads. So it's been a steady, steady reduction from a very high number of 12,000 on each side down to 1,550 on each side. 1500 still sounds like a lot. But her point, Rose Godemuller's point, is it's a whole lot better than where we were.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Yeah, I mean every nuke counts in arms control, right? I mean it is a big improvement. Also, I think one thing that people really don't know about New Start is that there was a lot more going on than just that top number. There was this entire system by which the US and Russia notified each other every time they moved a nuke around, they'd send a little message. And like tens of thousands of these messages went back and forth between the two countries over the 15 years of the treaty.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

And so there wouldn't be any false alarms.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Well, it was partially that, but it was also just about transparency. It was letting each side know where their nukes were. And beyond that, this is the part that kind of blew my mind when I learned it. They sent inspectors out to the sites, Russian and US military officers and experts were going around to each other's most securely guarded nuclear facilities and counting warheads.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Well, Jeff, stability, transparency, these would seem like a good thing when you're talking nuclear arsenals. Why has this deal been allowed to lapse?

[Jeff Brumfiel]

You know, New Start was never supposed to last forever. It was a 10 year deal with a five year extension. And the extension took place in 2021. But then the next year, as you know, Mary Louise, Russia invaded Ukraine. And so that invasion just kind of put such pressure on the US Russian relationship, it became impossible to think about negotiating a new arms control treaty under those circumstances. And so unfortun, unfortunately, when we got to 2026 and that five year extension was up, we basically came to the end of this very long period of treaties that controlled the two sides, strategic nuclear forces.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Because after the full on full scale war on Ukraine, the US And Russia basically couldn't agree on anything, including nuclear arms.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Right. And I mean, arms control treaties require both sides to sit in rooms together for months. And that just wasn't going to happen.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

So the other thing that has changed since the New Start deal was negotiated in the Obama administration is that the nuclear landscape has gotten a lot more complicated. For example, China is racing, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, but they're racing to catch up. Right. So is the thinking partly that any new deal to have teeth and be meaningful, would have to, to maybe go beyond just Russia and the U.S. yeah.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

This is a really interesting twist in the whole treaty situation. So China is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal for years. It had, for decades, actually. It had a policy of what it called minimum deterrence, which was just a couple hundred nukes that it was really going to use as a last resort. But they've recently decided they'd need more than that. They need parity with the US And Russia, and they are expanding their arsenal, adding hundreds of warheads and delivery systems. And this is a real problem. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was actually talking about this this week. You know, the President's been clear in the past that in order to have.

[Greg Myre]

True arms control in the 21st century, it's impossible to do something that doesn't include China.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile. China's position is that they don't have nearly as many weapons as the US And Russia yet. And so they don't want to be involved with any negotiations.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

So bottom line, however we got here, we are where we are. We're now in this zone where we have no nuclear arms deals governing the US And Russian arsenals. Do we know, Jeff? Practically. Like, actually, does anything change?

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Well, I spoke to a lot of experts, one of whom is a guy named Pavel Povig. He's at the UN Institute for Disarma Research in Geneva, Switzerland, a real expert on Russian forces. And he told me, you know, there was a golden. Well, not really a golden age, kind of a terrible age when the US And Russia really could ramp up their nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union and in fact, in the United States, to deploy like thousand intercontinental ballistic missiles in like three years was a piece of cake. But those days, he tells me now, are long gone. I don't think that any country has really the capacity to ramp up the deployment of missiles or submarines or bombers, for that matter. So what we're really talking about is taking maybe several hundred weapons out of storage in the near term and putting them on the systems we already have. But it may not even come to that. You know, Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered a year long extension on newstart. A lot of arms control experts would like to see Trump take him up on that, but we're not quite sure whether that's gonna happen yet.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Last thing on this, which is and again, we are taping little afternoon on Thursday afternoon, but there are whisperings that there may be some kind of conversations going on that maybe some kind of agreement between the US And Russia might be back on the table. What do we know?

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Yeah, we don't know a lot. I mean, Axios had a report this morning that talks in Abu Dhabi had brought this up, but I haven't seen any official statements yet. I would say it's a fairly easy gimme. This is a handshake agreement without all the inspections and technicalities of the original New START treaty. So I don't think there's a lot to lose by agreeing to limit forces. But the US Is so worried about China and its increasing nuclear arsenal, it may be that there's pressure not to constrain itself in any way and that might actually cause problems for this handshake agreement that Putin wants.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

We're gonna take a quick break. When we come back. We'll stay on that point. What kind of chances does nuclear arms control have in an increasingly unstable world? That's ahead on Sources and Methods from N.

[Greg Myre]

2026 marks the 100th anniversary of.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

What we now celebrate as Black History Month.

[NPR Sponsor/Promotional Voice]

So on Code Switch we're reflecting on that journey.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Black History Month is a time for people to observe black history as a movement and in a legacy that was about correcting the historical record. Listen to NPR's Code Switch podcast on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcast.

[NPR Sponsor/Promotional Voice]

This message comes from NPR sponsor Shopify. No idea where to sell? Shopify puts you in control of every sales channel. It is the commerce platform revolutionizing millions of businesses worldwide. Whether you're a garage entrepreneur or IPO ready, Shopify is the only tool you need to start run and grow your business without the struggle. Once you've reached your audience, Shopify has the Internet's best converting checkout to help you turn them from browsers to buyers. Go to Shopify.com NPR to take your business to the next level today.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Okay, let's pick up with Jeff Brumfiel and Greg Myrey on our thread on treaties Limiting nuclear weapons. And where I want to pick it up is here, that there is a certain logic in a chaotic world, and we're seeing the world order reordering in real time. There's a certain logic that countries would want to resist limits on their weapons, nuclear or any other kind of weapons. I mean, it makes sense that you'd want to leverage what you've got and hold on to any deterrent you've got. But, Jeff, I'm thinking the world was chaotic. The world order was reordering back when all these arms control efforts started. Right? Take me back to the Cold War.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Yeah, I mean, you know, I think it's important to remember, especially if you want to try and stay optimistic, that these agreements came out of a period of really scary nuclear instability. You know, I mean, I think a lot of this was really fomented by the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Greg Myre]

Good evening, my fellow citizens.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

The US had very powerful nuclear weapons in Turkey that could strike the Soviet Union quite quickly. And the Soviets were putting missiles into Cuba, which could strike the U.S. quite quickly. And it was all starting to feel a little too real.

[Greg Myre]

We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the course of worldwide nuclear war, in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth, but neither.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Will we shrink from that risk at.

[Greg Myre]

Any time it must be faced.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

And, you know, the two sides decided to dial it back.

[Greg Myre]

Yesterday, a shaft of light cut into the darkness. Negotiations were concluded in Moscow on a treaty to ban all nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and underwater.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

It's almost like kind of when there's instability, people notice that nuclear weapons are a real problem. And then when we get into a prolonged period of stability, they kind of forget that. So I don't think sort of entering a new era of global instability means we can't have arms control. But, Greg, I don't know. I mean, it feels like the moment we're in doesn't feel conducive to it for some reason. I don't know if you can think of why.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Yeah, Greg.

[Greg Myre]

Well, I mean, you know, the leaders, President Trump and President Putin, the way they talk about nukes in a much looser fashion and kind of hinting, or even kind of more than hinting, sometimes threatening about threatening to use them. You know, that's just something you didn't see back in the Cold War. The US Presidents and the Soviet leaders took this very, very seriously. It wasn't something they casually tossed around when some other, smaller country had annoyed them on that particular day. And Also, when you had the Cold War, countries were aligned by and large with the US or the Soviet Union. And now that that changing that could have a shift as well. The best example I could give you would be North Korea, South Korea. North Korea has nuclear weapons, South Korea does not. And South Korea has never really made a big push to get them because the US Was there with its nuclear umbrella protecting South Korea. If the US Suddenly says, well, we can't guarantee that we're going to come to your aid or we're not there to protect you, you're going to have to fend for yourself, well, then South Korea, the first thing they may want to do is we need to consider nuclear weapons. This is how a nuclear arms race begins. And it's been one of the greater achievements, I think, over the decades that only nine countries in the world have nuclear weapons when many more could have them.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Well, and you're making me think to shift us to a slightly different part of the world. But NATO, I mean, speaking of things that are different, for the last 75 years, NATO has understood the US had their back. Therefore every single country in Europe didn't need to have a nuclear weapons program. That is no longer maybe totally true if you take President Trump at his word about his thoughts on the alliance and collective defense in Article 5. So, I mean, bottom line to both of you, you talk to arms control experts, you talk to intelligence sources, you talk to people in the military. Bottom line, how worried are they?

[Greg Myre]

At the moment, we're not there. But if you start to see NATO fall apart, if you start to see the US Pull back in places in Asia with countries that don't have nuclear weapons, then that could happen. I mean, these are. We're talking about advanced countries that have the technology and could build nuclear weapons very quickly if they wanted to.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

I have to say. I mean, arms control experts are extremely worried about this. And actually, it is true, nukes are expensive. But you know that term bang for your buck, that actually comes from nuclear weapons. And if you're a small country and you can't raise a big army and you're facing a Russia or you're facing a China, nuclear weapons look very attractive as a way to try and deter these big militaries. And the problem is, once more and more countries get nuclear weapons, then the dynamics and the chance that someone's going to use one somewhere or another become much more fraud and complicated. And so I think as these sort of allied relationships break down, this is a real concern in the arms control community. And I don't think they really. They don't welcome it, that's for sure.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

That might be the most interesting thing I have learned yet. Bang for your buck. That comes from nuclear weapons. I didn't know that.

[Greg Myre]

Yeah, yeah.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

You learn something new every day. Okay, before our last segment, we want to remind you communication goes both ways. On this podcast, you can write to us with questions and feedback. Write to [e-mail] we can't respond to every email, but I promise you we do read and appreciate all of of them. So thank you for writing. We'll end our show as we always do, with osint Open source intelligence revealing little nuggets of news hidden in plain sight. I will kick us off this week by bidding farewell to a book. And the book is the CIA World Factbook. This was Wikipedia before there was Wikipedia. This was how you Googled something before there was Google. I remember being, you know, on deadline as a cub reporter and you need to know the population of Belgium and bingo, CIA World Factbook or you need to know, I don't know, the GDP of Mongolia. Bingo. It's there. I went back and looked. The first unclassified version. There was a classified version first, but the first unclassified version was issued in 1971. Makes it the same age as NPR, by the way. Also as me, by the way. All vintage 1971. It was not named the World Factbook until 1970. 1981. So it was with a somewhat sad and nostalgic heart that I saw the post yesterday on the CIA website. This classic has been retired. So, Greg and Jeff, y' all are screwed. Now, if I ask you, what is the population of Belgium, Right, I'm gonna.

[Jeff Brumfiel]

Guess 10 million, but I don't have 30,000.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

30,000?

[Jeff Brumfiel]

I don't know. It seems you don't know.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

You need your factbook. It's 12 million, give or take. So, Greg, you win, and for that you get to go. Next, what's your osint?

[Greg Myre]

Well, since we're going into the Wayback Machine Today, in 1993, I was a reporter in South Africa and I turned on the evening news and the President, FW De Klerk, comes on and says South Africa has dismantled its six nuclear weapons and was taking down its nuclear weapons program. And about a week after that, I got a call. Several reporters, including myself, were invited to outside of Pretoria, South Africa, the capital where a lot of the work on putting these bombs together had taken place. And they put us in moon suits and walked us around this empty building and they were monitoring us for radiation the whole time.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

And this felt like a good idea to accept this invitation.

[Greg Myre]

Why not?

[Mary Louise Kelly]

It was the radioactive plant.

[Greg Myre]

How many times do you get that opportunity?

[Jeff Brumfiel]

I would have gone in a heartbeat.

[Greg Myre]

And South Africa was then and remains to this day the only country that actually built nuclear weapons and then took them and then dismantled them and dismantled its entire nuclear weapons program. So there are nine other countries with nukes, and South Africa is the one that built them and then got rid of them.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Jeff, what do you have?

[Jeff Brumfiel]

So I've got some actual open source intelligence to share, which is a little tidbit that came out from the Institute of Science and International Security last week. They watch Iran extremely closely, and so they've been looking at satell images and noticed Iran was re burying tunnels at one of its nuclear sites at Esfahan. Now why would Iran do this? It's because they fear another U.S. attack. And when they bury those tunnel entrances, it makes it harder for US Munitions to hit whatever's inside. Does it tell us what's inside? Not really. Does it tell us anything about the status of Iran's nuclear program? Not really, except, you know, they still care about it and they're paying attention. And so I thought it was notable that even in the midst of all this chaos in Iran, there are people working on that program making sure those facilities are protected in case there's another attack.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

Excellent. That is senior science editor and correspondent Jeff Brumfiel. Jeff Brumfiel, lovely having you on. Sources and Methods Come back. I hope to and Ed fear national security correspondent Greg Myrey, thanks as always.

[Greg Myre]

My pleasure, Mary Louise.

[Mary Louise Kelly]

And before we go, a thank you to our NPR listeners. You help support the work of our journalists around the world, many of whom you hear on this podcast every week with npr. You can hear every episode of this show without sponsor messages. You can unlock access to our complete episode archive and listen sponsor free to a lot of other great NPR podcasts as well. So make sure you are taking full advantage, get all those benefits. You can Learn more at plus.npr.org I'm Mary Louise Kelly. We are back next week and we're gonna have a special episode of Sources and Methods. We will be at the Munich Security Conference with all kinds of diplomats and military officials and world leaders. So come back and join us for Sources and Methods from N.