Obama Counters Foreign Policy Criticism in State of the Union Address
Tara Chandra | Jan 27, 2012 |
0 
With the 2012 election looming, it is not surprising that the bulk of President Obama’s State of the Union address was focused on the U.S. economy and job creation. But the focus on domestic issues was underscored by a strong defense of the President’s record on foreign policy, in particular his decision to order the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden.
Apart from the killing of bin Laden, the only foreign policy issue that merited its own paragraph was Iran.
President Obama’s critics have accused him of being weak on Iran. During the Republican debate on Monday night, Rick Santorum even went so far as to say that, “Obama’s Iran policy has been a colossal failure.”
The President countered this criticism on Tuesday, saying, “Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”
He then added a vitally important caveat, “But a peaceful resolution is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.”
Although Obama is not ruling out the possibility of a military strike, at least rhetorically, it is clear that he will not consider it until all other options have definitively failed. Indeed, many in Washington, both in and out of government, have highlighted the dangers of military action in Iran. In fact, several Iran experts argue that that a military strike in Iran will virtually guarantee that Iran continues to pursue, and eventually obtains, nuclear weapons.
And it is not only the civilians in Washington who believe that military action in Iran would be detrimental to regional and global security. In a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, argued for greater engagement with Iran, saying, “We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days…of the Cold War we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran so we don’t understand each other.”
For an excellent primer on how a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear challenge might be achieved, see Arms Control Association analyst Peter Crail’s important analysis here.
Currently, Obama’s Iran policy has been dominated by economic sanctions. The United States-led multilateral sanctions effort has been joined by many other key nations, including Russia and China. And on Monday, the European Union tightened its existing sanctions against Iran, just in time for the State of the Union.
The reality is that Iran has become increasingly isolated over the past year. In the words of Colin Kahl, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East:
One year after the Egyptian revolution began, Khamenei's hopes -- and Western analysts' fears -- have not materialized, and are not likely to. Although it has been fashionable to describe Iran's growing power in the Middle East, actual events suggest the opposite. Iran's economy is reeling under sanctions, and the regime's nuclear activities and saber-rattling increasingly mark it as a pariah state. And as the Arab Spring marches on, Iran will find itself falling further behind.
Whether this will still be the case a year from now remains to be seen. Sanctions alone are unlikely to force Iran to rethink its nuclear program. It’s up to the administration to ensure that economic pressure is paired with the aggressive pursuit of a diplomatic solution.
Pentagon Budget: Forced To Diet On Only $613 Billion
Laicie Olson | Jan 26, 2012 | 0 
Those seeking further details on changes in the Pentagon budget received some satisfaction today in a briefing delivered by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
Secretary Panetta revealed that the budget, expected to be released in full detail on February 13, will contain $525 billion in base spending for fiscal 2013. This excludes funding for the wars as well as nuclear-related activities at the Department of Energy, and represents a $6 billion decrease from the fiscal 2012 base budget approved by Congress. Congress’ final number for fiscal 2012 was rolled back by $22 billion from the administration's original proposal in order to comply with the Budget Control Act.
In addition, the Pentagon will request $88.4 billion in funding for the wars overseas, approximately $27 billion less than fiscal 2012 due to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
The Pentagon’s stated “hope and plan,” according to Secretary Panetta, is to grow the base budget (PDF) to $567 billion by fiscal 2017. Although the budget would decrease slightly this year, 2.3 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, it would see a real increase of about a half a percent over the remainder of the next five years.
The Pentagon has taken a hard look at its priorities and scaled back some of its most pie-in-the-sky projects, but its actions have not impacted the country’s ability to fight a war. "This budget is a first step — it's a down payment — as we transition from an emphasis on today's wars to preparing for future challenges," said Dempsey, "This budget does not lead to a military in decline."
In fact, the Pentagon document, titled “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices,” notes that “Even with these reductions, the Army and Marine Corps will be larger than they were in 2001.”
If anything, the debt debate has provided the Pentagon with a long overdue opportunity to reexamine its priorities and reevaluate its strategy in light of ongoing and realistic threats. The last Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) punted on the subject, recommending that the Pentagon choose to prepare for everything short of a zombie invasion.
Security Matters, Defense Spending, Panetta, Dempsey (all tags)
Are Ambitious Life Extension Programs on Hold?
Nickolas Roth | Jan 26, 2012 | 0 
A B61 bomb in Europe
I recently wrote an analysis on the future of the proposed life extension program for the B61 gravity bomb.
It argues, "Congress provided the full $233 million NNSA requested for the B61 life extension program in FY 2012. However, when you read the fine print, it is less clear how Congress will respond to future funding requests. According to the Conference Report for H.R. 2055, the legislation which funds the government for FY 2012, including NNSA, Congress withheld $134 million until “NNSA submits to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the outcome of the Phase 6.2/2A design definition and cost study.
The results of this study, as well as other stringent reporting requirements mandated by Congress, are likely to present insurmountable hurdles to NNSA’s plan to move forward with the most ambitious option for the B61 LEP. The current budget environment is no doubt also a key driver of the need to reevalutate the objectives of the program, but a rethinking of the goals of the planned refurbishment would be necessary even in better economic times."
You can read the entire piece here.
budget, Life Extension Program, NNSA, Nuclear Weapons (all tags)
Missile Defense Still Not Defending
Kingston Reif | Jan 25, 2012 | 0 
Regular readers of the blog will remember that last October we flagged the following rosy proclamation from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta about U.S. missile defenses: “But you know, we really do have a very remarkable defense system set up to deal with that challenge [i.e. the missile threat to the U.S. homeland].” [emphasis mine.]
Two new reports suggest Panetta ought to be a little less effusive in his praise. The reports demonstrate that the currently deployed missile defense systems are still unable to reliably intercept and destroy incoming enemy warheads...
Looser constraints on civilian nuclear trade?
Kingston Reif | Jan 23, 2012 | 0 
Via Elaine Grossman, the Obama administration on January 11 sent a letter to Congress informing Members that it plans to pursue a case-by-case approach to civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with other countries.
In other words, it appears that the administration does not plan to require that future agreements require recipients of U.S. nuclear assistance to forswear the ability to make their own nuclear fuel via the pursuit of enrichment and/or reprocessing capabilities, as the United Arab Emirates did in its 2009 agreement with the U.S.
The administration has resumed negotiating nuclear trade deals with Jordan and Vietnam, which slowed in 2011 due to the Arab Spring and the Fukushima disaster. My sense is that Jordan is likely to agree to something functionally equivalent to the UAE deal, though we'll have to wait and see for final confirmation.
We'll have more to say about the policy as more details become known and/or new cooperation agreements are reached, but as we've suggested to the administration before, we think they can do better than the policy on which they seem to have settled. Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats in the House are calling for stronger oversight powers over new agreements that do not contain the highest nonproliferation standards, no small feat given the current political environment.
One more thing. The administration letter to Congress argues that we need to negotiate deals "that open doors to U.S. industry," meaning that agreements with tough nonproliferation conditions could hurt the U.S. nuclear industry.
It also notes that France and Russia are very aggressive in pursuing nuclear business worldwide, and offer terms that do not include stringent nonproliferation conditions.
Yet I fail to see how getting in a race to the bottom with France and Russia for nuclear business in Jordan, Vietnam, or worse, Saudi Arabia, would necessarily benefit the U.S. nuclear industry, to say nothing about U.S. nonproliferation goals.
The U.S. has seen its comparative advantage in the trade of materials, reactors, etc. diminish to the point where it can no longer compete with countries such as France and Russia. Tougher nonproliferation conditions wouldn't be, to borrow a phrase from NBA Jam, the nail in the coffin because there are already so many nails in the coffin!
Nukes on a Blog, Congress, civilian nuclear cooperation (all tags)
Nuclear Security Update
Duyeon | Jan 17, 2012 | 0 Hi all, two new papers by yours truly:
1. Where Nuclear Safety and Security Meet co-authored with Jungmin Kang, KAIST visiting professor published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Jan/Feb 2012 issue found here or here:
- "Fukushima has implicitly exposed the relationship between the nuclear safety problem and the nuclear security problem. The disaster also suggests that nuclear power plant safety and security can be strengthened simultaneously through improvements in vital areas, including on-site power supplies, the cooling system for reactors and spent fuel ponds, and the main control room."
- "To guard against natural accidents, terrorist sabotage, and possible combinations of these, it is time for a combined approach that strengthens nuclear safety-security."
Abstract
A Fukushima-like nuclear accident does not have to be caused by nature. Similar results could be wrought by a dedicated terrorist group that gained access to a nuclear power plant and disabled its safety systems. To guard against natural accidents, terrorist sabotage, and possible combinations of these two classes of events, nuclear plant operators and regulators should consider a combined approach called nuclear safety-security. Although safety and security programs have different requirements, they overlap in key areas and could support and enhance one another. Nuclear facilities could improve safety-security in technical ways, including more secure emergency electrical supplies, better security for control rooms, and, at new plants, reactor containment structures built to survive attacks by terrorist-flown airplanes. At the institutional level, regulators could strengthen the safety-security interface by requiring that it be built into the life cycle of nuclear plants, from design to dismantlement. The authors offer technical and institutional recommendations on how, for example, the International Atomic Energy Agency can support improved safety-security at nuclear plants globally by creating design standards that relate to both accidents and threats while encouraging countries to accept International Physical Protection Advisory Service missions that review security and physical protection systems and provide advice on best practices.
2. UNSCR 1540 & the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit: A View from Seoul published by the new journal 1540 Compass Winter 2012 edition found here or here:
- "The Republic of Korea (ROK) has been and remains a staunch supporter of the global nonproliferation regime as it borders a grave security threat and proliferator of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). With the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit just months away, the Republic of Korea should be more interested in enhancing UNSCR 1540, not only as the Summit Chair but against the backdrop of a “Global Korea” policy and the nation’s growing prominence in the nuclear energy industry."
- [T]he most realistic and practical method to advance 1540 could come in the form of house gifts” (national voluntary commitments) from individual heads of state."
nuclear security summit, 2012 NSS, nuclear safety-security, Fukushima, UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (all tags)
Quote of the Day: We wanna cooperate but you're stuck in the Cold War edition
Kingston Reif | Jan 13, 2012 | 0 
Ellen Tauscher
Tauscher acknowledged there are people within the Russian government who will “never trust us” -- and still have concerns about “offense and defense.”
She also suggested vestiges of a Cold War-era mentality could be a contributing factor, and ran through a potential scenario: “I’m sitting, you know, in one of their Seven Sister buildings ... trying to figure out how to get my [Ministry of Defense] money, and I’ve been doing it the same old way for 25 years. Now all of a sudden somebody says, 'We're going to be friends with those people. You don’t have to worry about it,' ” Tauscher said. “[I’m] sitting there thinking, what does that mean? … I need an enemy … I have to have somebody that I’m going to say: ‘This is their most recent picture on their Internet, I need to now counter this.' Because that’s what I’ve done for 25 years."
"I understand this," Tauscher continued. "And every once in a while, you can imagine that these people kind of gin up their administration.”Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher, speaking to reporters about the ongoing travails of NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation talks, January 12, 2011.
For our take on the state of the missile defense impasse, see here.
Nukes on a Blog, quote of the day, missile defense (all tags)
What is to be done? – The Russian Reset and Missile Defense Cooperation
Kingston Reif | Jan 11, 2012 | 0 Ulrika Grufman and I just published a piece on the status of NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation talks over at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation website. They're not going well. We write:
The current impasse is particularly frustrating given that the planned European missile defense architecture is not a threat to Russia’s deterrent (at least not yet). Meanwhile, the technical and financial foundations of the system are dubious at best. As four experts aptly put it: “The tragedy, if this confrontation results in a breakdown of relations between Russia and the West, is that almost nothing that anybody claims to be worrying about is real yet.”We conclude that despite the lack of progress to date, the two sides must try to continue to work through their differences on this issue even if not much is likely to be accomplished in 2012 given Presidential elections in both the U.S. and Russia.
Read the whole thing here.
Nukes on a Blog, missile defense, Russia, Congress (all tags)
Application Deadline for Fall 2012 Scoville Fellowship is January 17th!
Kingston Reif | Jan 10, 2012 | 0 Interested in launching (or at least dabbling in) a career in peace and security? Then you should apply for the Scoville Fellowship, a truly unique and rare opportunity for recent college graduates (and postgraduates) to spend six to nine months at a participating organization of your choice here in Washington D.C.
Did I mention that the Fellowship pays a stipend?
The Scoville Fellowship is currently accepting applications for the Fall 2012 semester. Don't delay: The application deadline is January 17, 2011.
Application requirements can be found here. Click here to see answers to frequently asked questions about the fellowship.
Some Additional Thoughts on the Pentagon Strategy Review and Nuclear Weapons
Kingston Reif | Jan 09, 2012 | 0 On January 5 President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, and other high-ranking defense officials previewed the results of the recently completed strategic defense review at a press briefing at the Pentagon. Though short on specific details about which programs and systems will be scaled back or eliminated, the review lays out a blueprint that will inform the more than $450 billion in reductions to projected defense spending increases the administration is planning to implement over the next decade. We’ll find out more about the budget impact of this blueprint when the FY 2013 budget request is released next month.
You can read of copy of the strategy document, entitled “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” here. Our initial take on the review can be found here.
I put together some more detailed observations on the implications of the review for U.S. nuclear policy and budgets over at the mothership. Read them here.
The bottom line? The Pentagon appears to be setting the stage, albeit cautiously, for further reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the nuclear weapons budget. How the play ends, however, remains to be seen.
