Ethics on Film: Discussion of "The Brink of War"

The Brink of War, written and directed by Michael Russell Gunn, zooms in on a specific moment in history: an encounter between the world’s superpowers and the ensuing 30 hours of intense, gripping debate on nuclear weapons—their use, their deployment, and their utility. Released on August 14, 2026, the historical film covers the Reykjavik Summit, the meeting between U.S. President Ronald Reagan (Jeff Daniels) and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev (Jared Harris) on October 11 and 12, 1986. Gunn’s artful directing and thoughtful research cover an underexamined story. Gunn asks the audience to examine the summit, long considered a political and diplomatic failure, and explore what it tells us about the state of the world then and what it could mean for us now, Summer 2026.

The Plot

The movie opens with Reagan looking out on the ominous skies and seas of Iceland. Importantly, this is the 29th hour of the summit; the two leaders have failed to reach any sort of agreement. U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz (J. K. Simmons) pleads with Reagan to make one final appeal to Gorbachev before the Soviet leader leaves for Moscow and closes the door to any future negotiations.

By starting at the end, Gunn does not leave the audience in the dark about the failure of the summit. There is no surprise ending or final plot twist. Rather, Gunn asks the audience to scrutinize the previous hours to examine how Reagan and Gorbachev walked away from Reykjavik without an agreement and what that means for the question of peace or war.

The film then jumps back to the first hour, the beginning of the impromptu, unceremonious, and isolated meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik. The film sets the scene with narration from Shultz. October 1986 is the height of the Cold War; both sides having amassed an astronomical number of weapons—the U.S. had approximately 30,000 nuclear warheads to the Soviet Union’s 40,000. Both leaders are shown to be consumed and burdened with the strategy of deterrence and the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The film unfolds with two hours of gripping cinematography depicting the historic 30 hours of intense debate between the leaders and their respective staffs about the nature of nuclear weapons. The exchange between the two sides is diffuse, covering forward-deploying weapons, ballistic missiles, submarines, the Strategic Defense Initiative, as well as the nature of allyship, human rights, and trust. What is revealed is extraordinary—both Reagan and Gorbachev want to bring the number of nuclear weapons down to zero.

A House Divided: Höfði House

Location informs the film. Reykjavik, Iceland—equal distance from Washington and Moscow—plays a direct role. Shots of the country, including volcanic rock and windswept tundras, are featured prominently throughout and underline the austere nature of the encounter and the bubbling, boiling-up of tensions. The nearly inhospitable, isolated place also serves as a reminder of the characteristics of what a nuclear war could look like.

While the Icelandic landscape flashes in and out, nearly the entire film is set in the white, unassuming Höfði House. The site of the summit, Höfði House literally shelters two opposing sides—the Americans and the Soviets. For 30 hours, the home is divided on every level. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Committee for State Security (KGB) split the basement, taping down a white line to divide their workspaces. On the top floor, the leaders’ respective staffs sit across the table from one another, tasked with hammering out the nature of possible deals and concessions. On the ground floor, the U.S. and Soviet military aides responsible for the “nuclear football,” or the briefcase containing the nuclear codes, stare, stone-faced at one another outside of the closed conference doors. These two carry the literal representation of what’s at stake—the power to destroy the world. Behind the doors, Reagan and Gorbachev converse, argue, and plead. The division within the house represents a wider global divide: the U.S.A vs the USSR, NATO vs Warsaw, capitalism vs communism.

The film has very little action. The drama is interpersonal and political in nature and all contained within the confines of the house. This is a distinct and thoughtful cinematic choice. Stuck inside, the house becomes a pressure cooker as each side hurls insults. The characters represent diametrically opposed worldviews, and the difference is articulated in, for example, the CIA staff’s accusations about the repression of the Soviet regime and the KGB’s retort about the cruelty of capitalism. On the leadership side, Reagan and Gorbachev appear at an impasse, unable to agree on the American Strategic Defense Initiative and the Soviet domestic human rights policies. Importantly, though, the exchanges reveal that neither side holds a monopoly on virtue. When agreements are made, when common ground is found, the divide in the house contracts—the white line in the basement is removed, the table between Reagan and Gorbachev appears to shrink.

The film also touches on each leader’s motivation for coming to this house in the first place. Perhaps too simplistically, Gunn links the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan to his motivation to negotiate. The president, responsible for a massive conventional and nuclear military buildup, thinks about his legacy and suffers constant flashbacks to the shooting throughout the film. Though his motivations can never really be known (Reagan’s own biographer, Edmund Morris, found him uniquely difficult to understand), his belief in big ideas and American exceptionalism boom bombastically throughout the house. Gorbachev, on the other hand, articulates a much clearer motivation for the meeting. Implementing massive domestic reforms and facing a precarious economic situation, the Soviet leader speaks in hushed tones to his wife Raisa Gorbachev (Branka Katić) about his desire for reduction and prosperity for the Soviet people. Irrespective of motivation, Gorbachev and Reagan sit across the table in Höfði House with a tremendous opportunity and responsibility.

Why the Film Matters

Diplomacy is an iterative process. By nearly all historic accounts, the Reykjavik Summit was a failure. The movie leans directly into this narrative with the opening scene depicting the end of the negotiation. At Shultz’s behest, Reagan shakes Gorbachev’s hand on the front steps of Höfði House and invites him to Washington. Another meeting—this is the only tangible outcome of the Icelandic encounter. The agreed-upon next step, however, acts as a catalyst for extraordinary change.

Although not depicted in the film, the leaders meet in real life again the following year for the Washington Summit and sign the historic Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty which lays the groundwork for the 1991 START I (Strategic Offensive Arms Reductions) Treaties. Reykjavik, as Gunn masterfully demonstrates, marks a turning point—from a building up to a drawing down, from destruction to diplomacy. The success of later agreements was built upon previous failures but also on the political will of the leaders of the U.S. and USSR and their ability to accept tradeoffs and compromise in the name of a greater political goal.

By zooming in on a single step of the diplomatic process with the hours in Reykjavik, Gunn tells a different story. In the American public conscience, the frame of reference for nuclear weapons is often limited to the dropping of the atomic bomb, the Cuban missile crisis, and the policy of MAD. Gunn puts a new story on the big screen; one which discusses and deliberates on nuclear weapons, their use, their limits and their utility (if at all).

Diplomacy is an art: The debates during the summit are non-linear so finding common ground proves to be an art. The master artist is embodied by George Shultz. Shultz, for whom the film is dedicated, met with Gunn in 2021 and shared the declassified transcripts of the summit. Both the character and the real-life man embody the ideals of a diplomat, with professionalism, expertise, and creative thinking.

Agreements between adversaries over humankind’s most deadly weapon do not happen overnight. They are years in the making, built on trust and political goodwill. Gunn’s film is also striking because it stands in stark contrast with the nuclear negotiations of today. Though different in nature and scope, the current peace deals and ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran tie directly to Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The representatives negotiating the deal on the part of the Americans, real estate mogul Steve Witkoff and Trump family member Jared Kushner, are nearly the inverse to statesman George Shultz. Lacking experience and diplomatic training, Witkoff and Kushner have, so far, had limited success.

What the film misses

Gunn’s film tells an important story from history but unfortunately fails to connect directly to the current moment, Summer 2026. The film concludes with a description of subsequent historical events, narrated by Shultz’s character, including the fall of the Berlin Wall and the successive successful arms agreements. There are images of freedom, headlines of victories, and graphs of reduction of nuclear weapons numbers. While these events are true, the film misses a critical opportunity to point out that as of today, we are trending in the reverse. New START, the last remaining bilateral nuclear agreement between the U.S. and Russia, expired in February 2026 with little political will to take up new negotiations. The number of nuclear armaments is growing, not declining. There is a serious need for limits established multilaterally among the nine nuclear powers. While the film teaches us important lessons, it fails to show directly why the lesson is important today. The call to action at the end of the movie is to support leaders who value “diplomacy over destruction.” For such an interesting story, the final message feels a bit tepid given the urgent need for renewed political power behind nuclear reduction.

Discussion Questions

1. What are other moments in history that should be told today? Why is that moment important and what does it teach us about the world today?

2. What could renewed nuclear negotiations look like today? What did Reagan and Gorbachev miss?

3. What does it take to find common ground with people who differ from you politically? Which strategies depicted in the film work best?

Works Cited

“The Enduring Impact of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative,” Aaron Bateman, Arms Control Association, September 2023.

“Gorbachev and Perestroika,” U.S. Department of State, 2026.

“Höfði House,” Visit Reykjavík, 2026.

“Joint Statement on the Soviet-United States Summit Meeting,” Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum, 1987

“Presidents and the ‘Nuclear Football',” William Burr, Arms Control Association, March 2025.

“Public Lives: Edmund Morris; Reagan's Biographer, Memory and Teacher,” Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, February 17, 1998.

“Reykjavik Summit: The Legacy and a Lesson for the Future,” Nikolai Sokov, The Nuclear Threat Initiative, November 30, 2007.

“Trump’s Iran Deal: What We Know, What’s Contested, and What Remains Unresolved,” Phil McCausland and Mariel Ferragamo, Council on Foreign Relations, June 17, 2026.

“The True Story Behind The Brink of War,” Barry Levitt, Time, August 14, 2026

"Walking a fraying nuclear tightrope," Joel Rosenthal, Politico, September 25, 2024.

Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs is an independent and nonpartisan nonprofit. The views expressed within this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Carnegie Council.