Stop the Press on ‘Preemptive’: Media Adopt Pro-War Rhetoric on Iran: What We're Reading Now
Mar 20, 2012
Iran
Barak: Israel must take U.S. vote into account when mulling Iran strike
Jonathan Lis, Haaretz - March 19, 2012
Defense Minister Ehud Barak called on Israel yesterday to take into account the U.S. election campaign, hinting that it would be unwise to launch an attack on Iran without American support.
U.S. War Game Sees Perils of Israeli Strike Against Iran
Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker, New York Times - March 19, 2012
A classified war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.
Stop the Press on ‘Preemptive’: Media Adopt Pro-War Rhetoric on Iran
Peter Beinart, Daily Beast - March 19, 2012
Unchastened by Iraq misinformation, the media are passing on pro-war statements as fact again. This time, it’s Iran. The Iraq War debate was not among American journalism’s finest hours. Despite, or perhaps because of, the media’s incessant coverage of the run-up to war, the public ended up wildly misinformed. An August 2003 Washington Post poll found that 69 percent of Americans thought it either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that Saddam Hussein had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Eighty percent of Fox News viewers believed either that Iraq and al Qaeda were closely linked, that the U.S. had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that world public opinion favored the war.
How bad would Iran be with the bomb?
Walter Pincus, Washington Post - March 19, 2012
Which would be worse if sanctions and diplomacy fail: the aftermath of an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran to set back its nuclear program, or the Tehran regime having the bomb? Of course, one hopes the sanctions/diplomacy route succeeds. But what if it doesn’t?
New START's First Birthday!
Feb 14, 2012
February 5th marked the 1st anniversary of the entry into force of the New START treaty. Kingston Reif used the February Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists column to muse on the treaty's implementation to date as well as future prospects for further nuclear arms reductions.
Here's an excerpt:
The Obama administration has stated that it seeks additional verifiable reductions with Russia not only in deployed strategic forces, but also in non-deployed strategic warheads and nonstrategic (i.e., tactical) nuclear weapons, which aren't currently limited by any treaty. This would greatly benefit US security.
For example, a new treaty limit of 1,000 deployed strategic warheads would reduce the number of Russian nuclear weapons pointed at the United States and likely dissuade Moscow from moving forward with destabilizing nuclear modernization programs -- such as the development of a new heavy ICBM. Verifiable limits on non-deployed warheads and nonstrategic weapons could enhance stability by addressing Russia's large stockpile of nonstrategic weapons, ensuring that nuclear warheads are actually eliminated as opposed to merely placed in storage, and providing greater transparency on all types of nuclear warheads instead of only deployed warheads.
Plus, additional reductions would save money -- not a minor calculation in this budget climate. As it stands, the Pentagon and Energy Department are planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade and beyond to build new nuclear delivery systems and warhead-production facilities. But reductions would stem the need for many of these planned replacement systems.
You can read the whole thing here. The State Department also released a helpful update on the treaty's implementation that you can view here.
New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms
Oct 25, 2011
Category of Data
Deployed ICBMs, Deployed SLBMs, and Deployed Heavy Bombers
822 United States of America
516 Russian Federation
Warheads on Deployed ICBMs, on Deployed SLBMs, and Nuclear Warheads Counted for Deployed Heavy Bombers
1,790 United States of America
1,566 Russian Federation
Deployed and Non-deployed Launchers of ICBMs, Deployed and Non-deployed Launchers of SLBMs, and Deployed and Non-deployed Heavy Bombers
1,043 United States of America
871 Russian Federation
______________
(As of September 1, 2011, as drawn from the exchange of data by the Parties. Data in this Fact Sheet comes from the biannual exchange of data required by the Treaty. It contains data declared current as of September 1, 2011. Data will be updated each six month period after entry into force of the Treaty.)
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
October 25, 2011
Prospects for nuclear arms control over the next 18 months
Jun 06, 2011
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs Conference
Carnegie Council, U.S. Army War College
U.S. Global Engagement: Report of Two Years of Activities
The Pocantico Center
June 1-3, 2011
Thank you for inviting me to participate in the conference.
I am delighted only to have to comment on Stephen Blank’s paper rather than do any original thinking or writing myself.
And while he focused more on the broader U.S.-Russian reset question, I will focus more narrowly on nuclear weapons and treaty issues between the two questions.
When I first gave a talk for the Carnegie Council a year and a half ago, I was brimming with confidence about the ambitious Obama Administration agenda on nuclear issues, particularly after the President’s wide-ranging and terrific speech in Prague, the Czech Republic in April 2009.
While there has been important progress since that speech, that progress has not led to great momentum on other parts of that nuclear agenda, at least not in the immediate future.
But the immediate future is just that; I think we can look to make more progress beginning in 2013.
Living With Half a Loaf
Apr 13, 2011
If I am ever involved in a legislative battle where we win a complete and total victory without any provisions and deals we do not like, I will know that either I am no longer of this world or have sunk into dementia.
Yesterday we learned that Congress will appropriate $2.3 billion for non-proliferation funding, a 9% increase from last year’s funding level and $241 million above the House level.
Some of us have hailed the result as a victory. The non-proliferation program recovered a good deal of the funds that the House had cut and won an increase while many other programs were cut back.
Others pointed out that while the final number was better than that produced by the House, it still was not full funding. We don’t know the final allocation of funds by the Department of Energy. Congress at the same time approved a large increase in funding for nuclear complex modernization.
Part of the policy process in Washington, D.C. is that winning 100%, total success on an issue without compromises and encumbrances rarely if ever happens.
New START advances in Russia
Feb 01, 2011
UPDATE: 2/5/11 New START enters into force during an international conference in Munich, Germany.
UPDATE: 2/2/11 President Obama signed the New START treaty with Russia on February 2.
On December 22nd, after a long, hard fight, the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The final vote was 71-26 in favor of ratification.
Then the treaty had to go through additional steps before it entered into force.
Although the Russians waited until after the United States Senate voted, getting this treaty through both houses of their Parliament was just a bit easier, which may have something to do with a somewhat less robust democracy in that country.
On December 24th, the Duma, which is Russia’s lower house, gave its preliminary approval of the treaty 350-58.
New START Debate (Day 8, the final day – December 22)
Dec 22, 2010
Presidents Obama and Medvedev sign New START agreement
By John Isaacs and Kingston Reif
After a battle that lasted many months, the Senate voted 71-26 to give its advice and consent to the New START Resolution of Ratification.
The effort to win the Senate’s two-thirds majority was like riding a roller coaster, with optimism followed by pessimism followed by optimism and back and forth.
Ultimately, the vote was a remarkably bipartisan victory in an intensely hyper-partisan atmosphere. It is a victory for the consensus of former national security officials of both parties and both active duty and retired military.
It is certainly a victory for the Obama Administration that won three major bipartisan measures in the waning days of Congress: the tax cut bill, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and New START.
By approving New START, the United States has sent a strong signal to the world that it can be counted on to be a reliable partner and leader in promoting nuclear stability. The treaty will also help buttress cooperative efforts with Russia and others to secure and safeguard nuclear material stockpiles and warheads and maintain and strengthen support for tougher measures against rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.
Before the final vote, the Senate adopted a Kyl amendment by voice vote, worked out with Senator Kerry (D-MA) and the Administration, to accelerate funding for modernization of the nuclear weapons complex.
The Senate also adopted by voice vote a McCain (R-AZ), Lieberman (I-CT), Corker (R-TN) amendment to make it clear that the United States does not accept the Russian interpretation of the missile defense language in the treaty and an understanding that the preamble to the treaty is not binding (stating the obvious and restating Obama Administration position).
Ratification of the treaty is only the beginning. The U.S. and Russia should take advantage of the momentum created by the approval of New START to pursue negotiations on reductions in all types of nuclear warheads, including non-deployed and non-strategic warheads, in a timely manner.
Lots of credit goes to Senators Kerry and Lugar (R-IN), who managed the treaty, other Senators who have been active for the treaty such as Casey (D-PA), Shaheen (D-NH), Cardin (D-MD), Franken (D-MN) and others, the Obama Administration who put together a terrific campaign (and I will not name everyone because there are too many to name) and a terrific effort by the arms control community.
It is now time for everyone to scatter for their well-deserved holiday vacations.
McCain and Risch New START Amendments Rejected
Dec 21, 2010
Senators Risch and McCain proposed two amendments to the New START treaty that would alter the language in the treaty's preamble. Neither of these amendments passed on the floor. Below please find the language and the voting record for both amendments.
Senator McCain's amendment:
To amend the preamble to strike language regarding the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms.
Senator Risch's amendment:
To amend the preamble to the Treaty to acknowledge the interrelationship between non-strategic and strategic offensive arms.
Healthy Start for New START
Dec 15, 2010
At long last, the Senate took up the New START Treaty, and the first day went very well.
Before the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) and the White House all expressed confidence that the two-thirds vote required to approve the treaty was in hand.
In the initial test, they proved accurate.
The vote on the motion to bring up the treaty was 66 - 32. Although it is a common misconception that 67 Senate votes are needed to approve the treaty, the correct number is actually two-thirds of the Senators present and voting. That milestone was achieved today.
One of the absentees for the vote was Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), who would be the 67th vote.
Nine Republicans voting yes: Bennett (Utah), Brown (MA), Collins (ME), Graham (SC), Lugar (IN), McCain (AZ), Murkowski (AK), Snowe (ME) and Voinovich OH).
The procedural vote to proceed on New START passed!
Dec 15, 2010
Today, Senator Harry Reid offered a motion for the Senate to proceed on New START. The motion passed 66-32 but this was, only a preliminary vote and there is still a lot to get done. On the bright side, nine Republicans in the procedural motion voted in favor to proceed.
In addition, final passage of the New START Treaty will require a two-thirds vote of those Senators present and voting. That two-thirds majority was achieved today, although again, on a preliminary vote.
For a full list of how the 111th Congress voted, refer to the chart below!
The nine republicans that voted in favor are highlighted in yellow
