New START and Defense Budgets on Post-Election Congressional To-Do List

Today's top nuclear policy stories, with excerpts in bullet form.

Stories we're following today: Wednesday November 3, 2010.

New START, Defense Budget Tough Issues Facing Next Congress – Eli Lake for The Washington Times [link]

• Regardless of Tuesday's midterm election results, the 112th Congress will face stark choices on national security issues ranging from arms control to the size of the defense budget.
• Democrats are likely to bring the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, for a vote in the lame-duck session later this month. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, last week predicted many Republicans would oppose the treaty, which the Obama administration has made the centerpiece of its "reset" of relations with Russia.
• Already some Republicans, such as Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, have proposed cuts to defense spending.
• The 18-member commission on the deficit has made it clear that it is at least considering reductions of the nearly $708 billion the administration is requesting for defense spending in 2011. The panel is expected to release its findings after the election.

Iran: Russia Gives in to 'Satan' with Missile Ban – Ali Akbar Dareini in The Washington Post [link]

• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized Russia on Wednesday for banning the delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Tehran, accusing Moscow of having caved in to "Satan."
• In comments broadcast on state TV, Ahmadinejad said the 2007 contract Tehran signed with Moscow for the S-300s remains valid and warned that Russia must pay compensation and penalties for unilaterally canceling the deal.
• The U.N. Security Council sanctions ban Iran from developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, investing in nuclear-related activities and buying certain types of heavy weapons. But they do not specifically prohibit Russia from supplying the S-300.
• The system could have boosted Iran's ability to defend against airstrikes. Israel and the United States had objected to the deal.
• The Iranian president has had harsh words for Moscow since Russia backed the latest tough sanctions against Tehran. In the past, Iran had depended on allies Russia and China - and their veto power at the Security Council - to block tough penalties.

NATO Sees Threats, but Is Reluctant to Say Just Who the Enemy Might Be – Steven Erlanger in The New York Times [link]

• NATO is still negotiating key points in a new strategic doctrine, its first since 1999, to be published in Lisbon.
• These issues include nuclear disarmament, which divides France and Germany, and the alliance’s relationship with the European Union, which gets tangled up, as always, in the complications of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey.
• NATO’s secretary general expects two headlines out of this month’s annual summit meeting in Lisbon: an agreement to build an alliance-wide missile defense system, and NATO’s own “reset” with Russia, whose president has accepted an invitation to the meeting and says Moscow will explore cooperation on missile defense.
• The main threat is perceived to be from Iran, which is building sophisticated missiles to go with its nuclear program. But President Obama and the Europeans are offering yet another round of talks to the Iranians, to get them to stop enriching uranium, and Turkey does not want the missile system to be seen as aimed at Tehran, so it is diplomatically impolite to mention Iran.
  

Iran and the West: Next Steps – Laicie Olson and Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (Ret.) in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists [link]

• After a year-long stalemate, nuclear negotiations with Iran are expected to restart.
• Ultimately, a successful fuel deal is a necessary condition for further engagement, and the Vienna Group will try once again to work with Iran to reach consensus on the terms for exchanging Tehran's low-enriched uranium (LEU) for ready-made fuel elements for its research reactor.
• But circumstances have changed since the offer was first proposed in 2009.
• A successful agreement hinges on realistic expectations from both sides. Some of the goals set in October 2009 -- like undermining Iran's rationale for domestic enrichment -- are still valid now, but others -- like leaving Tehran with less than a weapon's worth of material -- are today beyond the reach of this deal under the best of circumstances.
• Delays have created a new baseline: Iran's growing stockpile of 20 percent uranium and, with it, the additional important goal of stopping this higher level enrichment.
• The new fuel deal could require Iran to ship about 1,000 kg of LEU and its entire stockpile of 20 percent uranium -- or currently about 30 kg (equivalent to 200 kg of LEU). This would still reduce the number of nuclear bombs Tehran could potentially make and, relative to Tehran's current capabilities, would also prolong its time to a bomb, thereby maintaining the important threat-reduction and confidence-building aspects of the deal.
• The deal is still worth pursuing. Not selling fuel to Iran only strengthens its case for uranium enrichment.
• Note: Laicie Olson is Senior Policy Analyst and Lt. Gen. Robert Gard Jr. is Chairman of The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation - a Ploughshares grantee.

Clinton Lauds Malaysia's Strategic Trade Act – Malaysian National News Agency [link]

• In April 2010, on the eve of the Nuclear Security Summit hosted by US President Barack Obama, the Malaysian government announced that it had enacted the Strategic Trade Act, intended to strengthen Kuala Lumpur's ability to curb exports and transshipment of Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) related materials.
• Visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said today she believes Malaysia's Strategic Trade Act will deny nuclear proliferators the opportunity to use Malaysian territory to expand their aims.
• “With passing of the Strategic Trade Act, Malaysia now has powerful tool for preventing proliferation by making it easier to stop shipments of nuclear fuel, weapon parts and other equipment especially to states that are not fulffilling their international obligations such as Iran and North Korea.”
• She said implementing the act "quickly" and "effectively" would deny nuclear proliferators the opportunity to use Malaysian territory to further their goals.

The World With a Nuclear Iran – Moshe Kantor in The Wall Street Journal [link]

• Only days ago, Iran began loading uranium fuel rods into the core of its first nuclear power plant at Bushehr. While many in the international community played down the significance of Bushehr, it is emblematic of an illegal nuclear policy that could spell the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—perhaps the most important pillar of global security.
• An Iranian bomb must be stopped not only for what it could physically wreak on its neighbors and the world at large, but for the paradigm-breaking order that could result if Iran is able to achieve nuclear weaponization.
• Many neighboring governments have already said that they will fast-track their own nascent nuclear programs toward weapons capability if Iran acquires the bomb. This domino effect could spread further around the globe, thus tearing the NPT to shreds.
• Forceful action by all democratic nations is needed to counter Iran in particular and the threats of nuclear weapons in general. While the recent sanctions against Tehran by the United Nations, the European Union, the U.S., Canada and others are vital, their importance lies in their implementation, and in their ability to bring other countries on board. It is imperative that nations forego their short-term financial considerations to safeguard a future free of the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation.