The two summits in April 2010 – The Nuclear Security Summit in Washington and Nuclear Disarmament Conference in Iran; within a gap of four days has attracted world attention to the danger of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists,  highlighting  that a few countries possess them, while others are vying for them. The Washington summit focused on nuclear terrorism faced by the world currently due to the growing influence and spread of terror organizations. The Iranian conference, widely perceived to be a counterweight, attacked the US policies on nuclear disarmament and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while asking for fresh initiatives on these issues. President Obama was seen engaged in gathering world opinion against the nuclear threat posed by the al Qaeda and other such groups and also Iran’s nuclear ambitions at the 47-nation Washington summit. In contrast, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenie, and the President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that America's nuclear policy has placed the world in a dangerous situation, while encouraging the representatives of 60 nations to consider withdrawing from the NPT and starting a new organization.

By taking his speech in Prague in April 2009 a step further, Obama seems determined to secure nuclear materials around the globe within four years to keep them out of the grasp of terrorists. Without doubt, nuclear terrorism is the most imminent threat that the world faces today, and Obama’s concerns are real and for which he hopes to mobilize global opinion. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, accused the US of holding its own huge nuclear stockpiles intact while advocating non-proliferation to other countries. No doubt, Ahmadinejad’s views have some substance. However, Obama’s singling out Iran as the threat accords with the US policy initiated by his predecessor, making Iran the US’s target of immediate attention. For example, in his meeting with the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, at the Washington summit, Obama focused less on finding ways to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on weapons-grade nuclear material than mustering support for tougher economic sanctions against Iran, and a possible attack upon Iran in the near future. 

Iran’s belligerent posture in the  Tehran conference in criticizing the US could only heighten tension in the Middle East, bearing in mind the hostile relations between the US and Iran since 9/11.  The Washington summit was unanimously united in keeping nuclear weapons out of the reach of terrorist organizations. The voices raised at the Tehran summit were no less significant, especially on the NPT, which the West led by the US has advocated for being signed and ratified by all nations. Though there was a policy shift this time at the Washington summit with the NPT getting less prominence, the Tehran summit highlighted it as the tool of the West to deny it to the developing countries for acquiring their nuclear deterrent.

While Iran’s nuclear programme was highlighted at the Washington summit as the possible threat, no mention was made of Israel’s secret nukes, which prompted Iran to focus on the US’s double standards. Besides, the 60-member summit at Tehran was urged to find ways to reach a consensus on securing the world from nuclear threats, with an emphasis by Iran on the nuclear arsenals of the US. However, Iran, in order to seek legitimacy for its own nuclear programme, attacked those countries that possess large nuclear arsenals while advocating that weaker nations should not to acquire these weapons. This posture could backfire on Iran, leading to collective action against it.    

On the positive side, both these summits on nuclear weapons protection and disarmament showed concerns but in different ways, and both could play a significant role in the outcome of the NPT Review Conference being held in New York. However, the conflicting postures of the two hostile nations, the US and Iran might put the real issues on the backburner, and lead to a more aggressive policy being pursued towards Iran. The message from Tehran will, without doubt, have an effect on the NPT review conference, with participating countries gaining a clearer vision.  But the tussle between the US and Iran might jeopardize the required focus on the security of nuclear weapons.

The big challenge is to juxtapose the collective concerns at the two summits and  work towards a safe and secure world appreciating the lurking dangers of nuclear weapons, whether it be from the terrorist organizations or the growing conflict between the US and Iran, which could prompt Israel jumping into the fray. Other nations like China, Russia and India have a bigger role to play both in securing nuclear weapons from reaching the wrong hands and in easing tensions between the US and Iran, so that the message from two summits could become the focus of global attention.