Now that the Iran nuclear deal is in effect, it is worth exploring whether this agreement will in
fact: (a) constrain Iran’s efforts to build nuclear weapons and inhibit nuclear proliferation in the
region; or (b) have unintended negative consequences that the United States and its negotiating partners
did not or could not foresee.
With the United States as de facto leader, the five members of the United Nations Security Council
plus Germany – the so called “5+1” club – spent over two years negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA), or so-called “nuclear deal,” which is expected to reduce the danger of Iran acquiring
nuclear weapons. However, the nuclear deal is not seen by all as a “good deal.”
The topic of borders – ports of entry, security, and public health concerns – has become politicized, and the focus on true border security has been somewhat lost. Educating politicians and instilling practicality in the public are necessary before any effective border security policy changes can be made. A recent roundtable discussion addressed these critical issues.
Four key threats the nation faces will follow the next president of the United States into office.
These threats are not new, but will increase if not effectively addressed. Whoever is elected for this
leadership position must be equipped with the right information in order to prioritize and make tough
decisions regarding these threats.
In response to 9/11, the United States instituted one of the most massive changes in government with the creation and development of the Department of Homeland Security. Since then, a combination of massive attrition, personnel retirements, and complacency due to lack of new disasters has created a void of experienced personnel that must be addressed.
For the first time since the demise of the civil defense program of the Cold War, the federal government has made one of the most significant modifications to its emergency preparedness message. A three-day emergency kit is no longer sufficient to prepare for emerging threats, whether coming from Earth or from space.
Today’s disasters are more frequent and more complex than ever before. Although governments at all levels have risen to the occasion by training personnel and securing equipment and resources, there will always be a lack of manpower. This gap has been addressed using volunteers, who – despite having the best of intentions to help those in need – often lack the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities.
The nation’s critical infrastructure – loosely defined as the fundamental facilities, structures, and systems necessary for the basic functioning of daily life – is comprised of diverse components controlled and managed by a mixture of private sector and government organizations with varying levels of responsibility. Understanding the interconnectedness between sectors is key.
All infrastructure is not the same. Across disciplinary sectors, agencies and organizations must
identify the key elements necessary to ensure “a system” (e.g., community) has a minimum level of
resilience, as a system is only as strong as the weakest link. DomPrep hosted a roundtable discussion to
address “Critical Infrastructure – A Failing Grade.”
Two decades of federally funded research and development culminate in a real-time chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) system for detection, surveillance, and crisis management for the nation’s critical infrastructure. Argonne National Laboratory continues to tailor this system for various transit and other critical infrastructure environments.
Now that the Iran nuclear deal is in effect, it is worth exploring whether this agreement will in
fact: (a) constrain Iran’s efforts to build nuclear weapons and inhibit nuclear proliferation in the
region; or (b) have unintended negative consequences that the United States and its negotiating partners
did not or could not foresee. 