At a time foreign relations are a priority, our proposed Russian arms treaty still falls short of the mark.
By Micah Hanks
No matter how you look at it, an already tense situation has begun to further escalate in the Middle East. With a host of countries signing on to enforce economic sanctions against Iran during the last several weeks, Iran’s president has accused the West of engaging in “psychological warfare” in which the United States acts as grand puppet-master. Though the sanctions are intended to stifle potential development of nuclear weapons in Iran, some officials in the international community remain skeptical, such as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who stated recently, “Probably at a certain point we should realize that sanctions cannot work.”
Yesterday did, however, present a rather unique turn of events: Russia, who previously had maintained rather warm ties with Iran, chose to back the international sanctions also, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fired criticisms at Russian Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev. Taking into consideration the mutual concern Iran presents to nations around the world, it is arguable that increasing diplomatic ties with countries like Russia would benefit the US more now than at any time in the last decade or better. The Russian military has already pointed out recently that their tactical nuclear weapons and missile defenses are poised and ready to dissolve regional or local conflicts along their borders, should this become a necessity. Quite simply, Russia, a country which borders Iran, may be capable of presenting military pressure that would act as a strong deterrent against hostilities.
The primary goal present sanctions are hoped to achieve is to force Iran to disengage further development of its nuclear programs. However, nuclear weapons harness tremendous destructive potential–regardless of who uses them. Therefore, many also hope that Obama’s proposed New START nuclear treaty could help cool foreign ties with Russia, chief among countries backed against the hotplate cooking beneath the Middle East. Coordinating an effective defense program, all the while limiting the destructive force of nuclear weapons abroad, has great merit; however, New START’s present wording amounts to a mixed bag which, though limited in their reduction of Russian defenses, would impose disproportionate restrictions on the US. One must ask whether good foreign relations should come at the cost of greatly diminishing America’s own defenses.
This debate is hardly a new one. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who rejects New START, has butted heads with other Republicans on the issue, namely Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, after writing a Washington Post piece denouncing the treaty as “Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake.” Lugar fired back that Romney was distorting and ignoring outright many of the facts and history surrounding the treaty, and remains hopeful that there will be Senate Republican support needed for it to pass.
Romney, in response to Lugar’s claims, provided his most thorough comeback yet, which manifested in his article “Eight Problems with the New Start,” published at the National Review website yesterday. In the piece, Romney points out numerous ways in which US missile defenses will be greatly compromised and undermined. Controversies are apparent with the inclusion of a number of provisions, such as that which allows multiple-warhead bombers to be counted instead as a single warhead. Romney argues this will allow Russia to “effectively escape the limit of 1,550 by deploying long-range bombers with many nuclear weapons.” All the while, General Yevgeniy Buzinskiy, who played a key role with the Russian Ministry of Defense during the treaty’s negotiations, has stated that increases in US anti-ballistic missile systems “could be claimed as a breach of the treaty.” The obvious inequality here is mirrored by an assessment of the treaty Romney includes, which notes that “every single provision favors Russia or is neutral; not one favors the United States.”
But perhaps worst of all is the blatant oversight that pertains to verification procedures of Russian defense systems. In commentary provided by The Heritage Foundation, New START’s verification procedures are found to be next-to-ineffective. Speaking at one of the organization’s recent events, former U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence member Paula A. DeSutter stated, “The Russians can do so much under this treaty to advance and expand their strategic forces,” noting that America’s “ability to determine whether or not they are doing that and whether it violates the treaty is very, very low.” Additionally, during a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing pertaining to New START, Senator John McCain shared a revealing exchange with U.S. Strategic Command Commander Kevin Chilton, asking him if he agreed with an “unclassified statement in the State Department Verification Assessment that ‘any cheating by the Russians would have little, if any, effect’.” Chilton verified that he did in fact agree, to which McCain shot back, “General, is if it doesn’t have any consequences if they do any cheating, what’s the point in having a treaty?”
Conflict brewing in Iran has shown no sign of curbing, and if anything, fears have begun to mount that economic sanctions may even escalate a conflict, rather than halt it. Maintaining honest ties and secure relationships with countries like Russia must be taken seriously, though New START, in its present form, does little to aid this. By the same token, eliminating the treaty altogether might amount to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Even Romney, perhaps its fiercest opponent, says that the treaty should not be approved “as currently drafted.” The better solution here is to amend the treaty and eliminate the blatant favoritism in New START that undermines US defense systems; whether Russia will accept it on such terms, of course, remains to be seen… but having no treaty might be better than having one that disproportionately hinders our security.
