On Saturday, March 28 the Brandeis chapter of the Alexander Hamilton Society, in collaboration with Brandeis Peace Club, held a speaker event titled “Nuclear Disarmament: Strategic Realities & Constraints.” The discussion was moderated by Benjamin Starr ’27, president of the Alexander Hamilton Society, featuring Prof. Gary Samore (POL) and Prof. Areg Danagoulian, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Alexander Hamilton Society is a non-partisan organization dedicated to facilitating student discussions about foreign policy and affairs and has over 80 campus chapters across the United States. According to the AHS website, the group’s mission is to “identify, educate, and launch young men and women into foreign policy and national security careers imbued with the Hamiltonian perspective of strong and principled leadership in global affairs.” 

The event began with an introduction by Ali Arshad ’28, president of the Peace Club. Arshad stated that it wasn’t until he spoke with Prof. Samore that he began to consider the seriousness of an issue like nuclear disarmament. “Why are we okay with these weapons of mass destruction?” Arshad asked. He also emphasized the importance of community when attempting to combat issues as large as nuclear disarmament. “Peacebuilding doesn’t happen in isolation,” Arshad asserted. As such, the Alexander Hamilton Society and Peace Club partnered together to host the event, with the goal of educating students about the issue. 

Prof. Samore holds over 20 years of experience as a public servant. Between 1996-2000, Samore served as a Special Assistant to President Clinton, as well as the Senior Director for Nonproliferation and Export Controls at the National Security Council. From 2009-2013, Samore served as President Obama’s Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, which involved advising the president on matters of nuclear security and preventing global proliferation of WMDs. 

Starr began the discussion by asking Samore what he considers to be the most significant challenge in preventing nuclear proliferation today. Samore touched on his own experiences working on “the hard cases,” those in which he was tasked with working alongside countries that were strongly motivated to develop nuclear weapons, such as Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Iraq. Samore noted that in the instance of Pakistan and North Korea, the U.S. failed to prevent nuclear proliferation. As such, he believes that “you have to be a bit humble about what the U.S. can achieve.” He also explained that efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation have been much more successful when the U.S. worked with allies such as Italy, Japan, Germany and South Korea. Speaking to the current moment, Samore said, “dealing with Iran is a big challenge” and he believes the current war will further motivate the Iranian government to produce nuclear weapons. 

The next question moved into Samore’s experience under the Clinton and Obama administrations. “In some ways, working for Obama was very satisfying,” Samore described about his four years working under the former president. Under the Clinton administration, the U.S. had been working to prevent nuclear proliferation in South Asia and North Korea, while during Obama’s term, the U.S. had already failed at doing so and was “managing” the situation. During the Obama years, much of Samore’s work was also focused on Iran, which he described as “an issue of war and peace.” Samore cited a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, “which I think was quite an effective agreement.” However, he noted uncertainty about the future of U.S.-Iran relations as the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement during the president’s first term, which led Iran to expand its nuclear program. 

After the question, Prof. Danagoulian joined the panel and discussed the current state of nuclear affairs in Iran. Samore noted that “until Trump, presidents were not prepared to use military force” in Iran. Instead, presidents opted to use sabotage, sanctions and diplomacy to negotiate with the country. He described the June 2025 war in Iran as “very effective” in destroying Iran’s key enrichment facilities. Samore believes that if the current war ends, it will be the result of intense negotiations, and the United States may need to use military force to slow the Iranian nuclear program down. Danagoulian offered a similar perspective, believing that the use of military force would do little to eradicate the Iranian nuclear program. “You cannot bomb nuclear knowledge,” he said. “Iranians have the knowledge [to build nuclear weapons], it’s not going to go away.” As such, he acknowledged the importance of empathizing with foreign adversaries. 

Starr asked both professors how they would go about convincing Iran that nuclear restraint is in its best interest. Samore noted that the Iranian government has viewed the United States and Israel as enemies since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, during which the Islamic Republic took control of the Iranian government. As long as the Islamic Republic remains in power, Samore said, the country’s motivation to develop a strong nuclear program will persist. 

The discussion transitioned to the U.S.’s past non-proliferation efforts during the arms race with the former Soviet Union. Danagoulian mentioned South Africa’s decision to give up its nuclear weapons. Afterwards, “South Africa has done fairly well,” he said. Samore pointed to the notion that the idea of mutually-assured destruction at the time was “suicidal” and helped prevent proliferation. He also discussed China’s ongoing nuclear buildup initiative. The U.S. “is not looking to accept China as an equal nuclear power” and as such, we will likely see greater U.S. nuclear buildup in coming years. 

Danagoulian responded to this by discussing the U.S. response to China and Russia’s nuclear proliferation. He mentioned new “super-fuze” technology which nearly triples the U.S. warhead killing ability and has become “extremely worrisome” for the Chinese. He added that during the Korean War, the United States had accumulated enough nuclear weapons to credibly attack 24 Chinese cities, whereas comparatively, China could attack 10 major U.S. cities. He reinforced the notion that nuclear buildup will likely continue in the next decade or so. “As much as we might regret it, nuclear weapons are here to stay.” Danagoulian also pointed to the idea of a “proportional response” during wartime, and how this has long been a principle of countries with nuclear powers. Samore noted that the U.S. also holds a small force of bombs in Europe to counter Russian nuclear attacks, if need be. 

Starr asked about how they believed the emergence of new technologies such as artificial intelligence would affect nuclear proliferation. Danagoulian responded that we must acknowledge “how horrifyingly destructive these weapons are” and that the prospect of accidental nuclear war as a result of new technology was incredibly distressing. Samore noted he was surprised by the amount of nuclear deterrence among world leaders. He stated that he does not believe artificial intelligence will add much reliability to nuclear management and “we will not allow AI to determine nuclear decision-making.” 

Both professors were also asked about their motivations for working in the field. Samore described his time working at a lab and how he began to learn more about nuclear technology, and eventually wanted to work in public service. Danagoulian shared his background in physics and how, after the events of Sept. 11, he began to learn more about concerns of nuclear terrorism. 

The event moved into a question and answer section. The first question came from Lucas Thompson ’28, who asked about investing money and resources into a problem that may not be preventable. Samore shared that he believes sometimes the best option in such important situations is managing and delaying. “We do want to prevent nuclear war.” Danagoulian emphasized the importance of differentiating an entire country and its population from its government. As such, he explained that nuclear developments often change when new governments take power, such as the case of the Islamic Republic in Iran. 

Cati Alexandru ’27 asked about how the U.S. can continue to discourage other countries from nuclear proliferation while it possesses nuclear weapons of its own. “I don’t view nuclear policy through a moral lens,” Samore said. He added that “there’s no moral basis for the U.S. to lecture other countries.” The best the U.S. can do, he believes, is encourage other countries that developing nuclear weapons is not in their best interest. Danagoulian noted his agreement about the issue of morality in nuclear proliferation. “These are weapons of mass genocide,” he said, and believes the best we can do “from a moral point of view” is to convince other countries that developing nuclear weapons is not in their best interest. 

Arshad asked about the issue of Pakistani national security and the potential of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of other groups attacking the Pakistani government. Samore shared that the Pakistani government devotes many resources to ensuring its nuclear weapons are protected, while Danagoulian believes Pakistan must be tactical in ensuring the protection of these resources. 

The event concluded with a final question about protecting uranium and the political tension this has created in other countries such as Pakistan. Danagoulian emphasized the importance of paying attention to different political climates like that of Iran and how this contributes to nuclear tension. 

Ultimately, the panel provided great insight from expert professors about the unfolding nuclear situation and how we can best combat this issue through diplomacy, negotiation and potential military action as the war in Iran continues.