Laurence Norman

it won't do that.

That will need to be resolved.

That will take a serious amount of time.

And the two sides are quite far apart.

What I would say, based on covering this for a very long time, is when you can kick issues down the road, you do.

And I think the most likely is to come up with some kind of temporary arrangement that gets you through the two-week period, that makes this brief ceasefire into a longer-term ceasefire, an open space for a real negotiation in the coming weeks, months.

potentially years, because the only two alternatives are one, you can resolve all of these issues in two weeks, which is really impossible.

And the second is that the Zorks fail and they go back to war, which is plausible, but it's fairly clear that both sides don't want to do it.

Thanks a lot.

So I think the first thing to say is that this change so far is incremental. There is not a sudden race to nuclear arms taking place across the world. What we've heard in Europe is in Germany, a country that has never really considered nuclear weapons. There is some talk on the margins of do we need to do this?

So I think the first thing to say is that this change so far is incremental. There is not a sudden race to nuclear arms taking place across the world. What we've heard in Europe is in Germany, a country that has never really considered nuclear weapons. There is some talk on the margins of do we need to do this?

Significantly, we've heard France talk about extending its nuclear umbrella, using the nuclear weapons that it has to defend its European allies. And there is some interest and there are some conversations around how that would work.

Significantly, we've heard France talk about extending its nuclear umbrella, using the nuclear weapons that it has to defend its European allies. And there is some interest and there are some conversations around how that would work.

This obviously comes at a time when there is a great deal of concern that the Trump administration is less interested in NATO and less interested in defending Europe's security.

This obviously comes at a time when there is a great deal of concern that the Trump administration is less interested in NATO and less interested in defending Europe's security.

If there is a single country that is at this stage most likely to go for a nuclear weapon because of its concerns about U.S. support... it is probably South Korea. They've talked about it over the last couple of years. They also had a program in the past that was dabbling in nuclear weapons.

If there is a single country that is at this stage most likely to go for a nuclear weapon because of its concerns about U.S. support... it is probably South Korea. They've talked about it over the last couple of years. They also had a program in the past that was dabbling in nuclear weapons.

There are US officials who are expected to be quite high up in the Trump administration who have encouraged South Korea to think about the nuclear option because the US doesn't want to have a large defense commitment and tens of thousands of troops bogged down in South Korea in the future if it's going to face off with China.

There are US officials who are expected to be quite high up in the Trump administration who have encouraged South Korea to think about the nuclear option because the US doesn't want to have a large defense commitment and tens of thousands of troops bogged down in South Korea in the future if it's going to face off with China.

Iran. They are very, very close. Some people think that they could put together some kind of crude missile in a matter of two, three months. They could easily choose to develop a nuclear weapon. And as Marion said, if the Iranians do, the Saudis have said they will. The one that we should really worry about is the one we've been worrying about for 20 years, which is Iran.