When Arms Control Leaves the Deadliest Weapons Off the Table

The Common Good Party believes security means strength with values. We defend American interests without abandoning American principles. That's why a reported gap in US-Iran negotiations matters: according to The Hill, the Memorandum of Understanding excludes ballistic missiles from its scope, even though these weapons form the backbone of Iran's military doctrine.

Here's what this means in plain terms. If you're negotiating to reduce a threat, you negotiate over the threat itself. Leaving Iran's ballistic missiles off the table while reaching an agreement on other matters doesn't eliminate the threat, it validates it. The message becomes: we accept that you have these weapons, we're just managing everything else around them.

This connects directly to our party's position on nuclear weapons. We hold that no single person should hold unchecked authority over the most consequential decision in human history. That principle extends beyond nuclear arsenals to the delivery systems that make those arsenals matter. Any arms control agreement that fails to address the primary means of delivering weapons of mass destruction is an incomplete agreement.

Regional security, for American troops, for our allies, and for the stability that makes commerce and diplomacy possible, depends on agreements that reduce actual threats, not just manage the political theater around them. A deal that looks good on paper but leaves the most usable weapon in place serves no one's common good.

The question isn't whether Iran should have deterrence capability. The question is whether American negotiators secured real limits on the specific systems that pose the greatest risk to regional stability and American interests.