Nuclear Diplomacy: A Familiar Playbook for Washington's Pivot
CASE A: The US-Armenia Nuclear Embrace (2024) The DW article blandly reports: "During a visit by Vice President JD Vance, the US and Armenia agreed to cooperate in the civil nuclear sector. Vance will also travel to Azerbaijan, hoping to finalize a peace deal kicked off in the White House." This framing suggests a benign, technical agreement with a side of regional peacemaking. The US, we are
told, is merely assisting Armenia in diversifying its energy mix, moving away from Russian reliance on its aging Metsamor nuclear plant built in 1976. The deal itself, known as a '123 Agreement,' allows for the transfer of nuclear material, equipment, and technology for peaceful uses, ostensibly under IAEA safeguards. Curiously, the immediate push for such a deal follows Armenia's increasing
distance from Moscow, including its refusal to host CSTO drills and its growing engagement with Western partners. CASE B: US Nuclear Partnerships in Politically Fragile Regions (Historical Pattern) Now, let's contrast this with historical precedents. One might recall the US's 'Atoms for Peace' program initiated in 1953 by then-President Eisenhower. While presented as a global push for peaceful
nuclear energy, it often served as a Cold War tool to gain influence and control access to strategic resources. Take, for instance, Iran under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The US enthusiastically supported Iran's nuclear program in the 1950s, providing enriched uranium and technical assistance, even as Iran's internal political landscape was heavily influenced by the 1953 CIA-backed coup that