Russia Ratifies New START Treaty

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

Stories we're following today: Wednesday January 26, 2011.

Russia Approves Arms Treaty - Andrew Kramer in The New York Times [link]

• The upper chamber of the Russian Parliament gave final approval to the New Start nuclear arms control treaty on Wednesday, a key foreign policy goal of the Obama administration.
• “The arms race is a thing of the past,” the chairman of the international affairs committee in the Russian senate, Mikhail Margelov, told Radio Russia on Monday. “The disarmament race is taking its place.”
• The Russian process — in a Parliament dominated by pro-Kremlin parties — went more smoothly, and usually hard-line figures here were making celebratory comments earlier this week.
• But, mirroring the process that occurred earlier in the United States Senate, the Russians intend to append a nonbinding statement of interpretation that will formalize what amounts to an agreement to disagree on the American missile defense program, which Russia opposes.
• “They are welcome to interpret any language of the treaty as they want, but that interpretation is not legally binding on the United States,” Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a telephone interview.

State of the Union Address - President Barack Obama [link]

• American leadership can also be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)
• Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher sanctions, tighter sanctions than ever before. And on the Korean Peninsula, we stand with our ally South Korea, and insist that North Korea keeps its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons. (Applause.)
• This is just a part of how we're shaping a world that favors peace and prosperity. With our European allies, we revitalized NATO and increased our cooperation on everything from counterterrorism to missile defense. We've reset our relationship with Russia, strengthened Asian alliances, built new partnerships with nations like India.

Ike Was Right: Defense Spending Must Be Cut - David Ignatius in The Washington Post [link]

• Trimming the defense budget is one of the hardest tasks in Washington. Congress never met a weapons system it didn't like. But with the nation's debt problems, making sensible cuts has become essential.
• Senior Pentagon officials recognize that new technologies make it possible to reshape the budget without putting the country at greater risk. But this transition will require an honest evaluation of the "legacy systems" - the squadrons of manned bombers and fighters; the fleets of aircraft carriers, cruisers and submarines - that are wrapped in red, white and blue.
• The Pentagon knows it can't have it all; hopefully, members of Congress (who love to bloviate about cutting the budget but hate cutting actual programs) will get the message, too.
• President Obama has the right team in place to begin this strategic downsizing of the defense budget. Gates has been an outspoken advocate of cutting programs we can't afford, and he has strong backing from Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military brass knows the country won't be secure if it's broke.
• In this season of budget politics, there can't be any sacred cows. Obama and his Pentagon advisers need to show the country that by changing how we spend money, it will be possible to cut our defense budget and stay safe.

Security Spending Conspicuously Absent from Budget Cut Proposals - Laicie Olsen on The Nukes of Hazard Blog [link]

• By now, you’ve probably heard that the theme of tonight’s State of the Union will undoubtedly be the economy. The President is expected to propose a five year freeze on non-security discretionary spending (déjà vu?) and a ban on earmarks, while Rep. Paul Ryan, who is no doubt practicing his best Reagan impression in front of the mirror as we speak, is gearing up to deliver the Republican response.
• CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller reports via Twitter that the President will call for $78 billion in defense cuts over the next five years. One would assume this means he will echo Secretary Gates’ recent announcement citing the same numbers.
• The problem here is that the term “cut” is used very loosely in Gates’ plan for the defense budget.
• Last year’s $100 billion efficiencies initiative was never meant to reduce the Pentagon’s budget, nor contribute to deficit reduction. Rather, it was meant to reduce Pentagon waste and boost more important mission-critical projects, since the entire $100 billion would be reinvested in DoD.
• Moreover, in Gates’ proposed cuts, the Pentagon’s base budget will not actually go down at any point in the next five years. It will instead amount to slower growth that will eventually stop, and then begin to grow again. This is considered a reduction only because the budget will eventually stop growing with the rate of inflation, so further waste will have to be cut.

Israel's New Top Spy: Iran Bomb Possible In 2 Years - Dan Williams in Reuters [link]

• Sanctions have not held up Iran's nuclear program and it could produce bombs within two years, Israel's new top spy said on Tuesday, staking out a conservative timeline in the face of rosier U.S. assessments.
• The remarks by Major-General Aviv Kochavi, chief of military intelligence, also appeared aimed at asserting authority over the rival Israeli espionage agency Mossad, whose departing chief said this month Iran might not have nuclear arms before 2015.
• Though military intelligence has traditionally enjoyed precedence over the Mossad in setting Israel's strategic assessments, ex-general Dagan's words resonated widely given his acclaimed eight-year tenure and reputation for hawkishness.
• "The question is not when Iran will have a bomb but rather how much time until the Supreme Leader decides to escalate" uranium enrichment, Kochavi said, referring to a currently low-purity project that Iran says is for peaceful energy needs.
• Western officials tend to see potential Iranian military nuclear capability at mid-decade -- whether due to Tehran's policies, foreign sabotage or U.S.-led sanctions biting into key funds and supplies.

Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address & North Korea - Nukes of Hazard Blog [link]

• President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address is a speech that is always listened to very carefully by North Korea watchers, and North Korea is particularly sensitive to the State of the Union Addresses.
• This year’s 2011 State of the Union Address is interesting and positive for several reasons.
• First, this year’s State of the Union Address mentions North Korea, which has not always been the case in the past.
• Second, it sends a very clear message – that Washington and Seoul stand firmly united, which also has not always been true in the past. Washington and Seoul have been deeply divided on North Korea in past administrations. Pyongyang has also consistently and constantly tried to drive a wedge between the allies and we have seen such movements recently.
• Third, it does not condemn Pyongyang or use harsh language about the regime, which was heard in past American SOTU addresses and had aggravated Pyongyang to react with provocations. The absence of condemnation this year, despite recent revelations of a uranium enrichment program, may be seen as Washington’s way of trying to create an environment conducive to dialogue and avoid aggravating Pyongyang.
• Finally, it sends a clear message demanding Pyongyang to surrender its nuclear arsenal and ambitions. However, it does not mention consequences, which may be a way of avoiding confrontation.