This is a premise that supports the politician’s conclusion. Since countries on the verge of civil war are unlikely to reduce their arsenals, unilateral arms reduction wouldn’t achieve broad disarmament.

This is a component of the proponents' reasoning, not the politician's.

This doesn’t appear in the politician’s argument. The politician says many countries can’t be relied upon to conform to international military policy, but we don’t know anything about the disclosure of nuclear capability.

This doesn’t appear in the politician’s argument. The politician's conclusion isn't about whether we're likely to reach an international agreement; it's about the danger of unilateral disarmament.

This accurately paraphrases the conclusion, which is that it would be dangerous for our country to unilaterally reduce our nuclear arms. The politician supports this conclusion by citing to the fact that countries on the verge of civil war can't be relied on to conform to international military policy.