Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Moscow to speed up the completion of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty follow-on agreement with Russia continues to highlight the difficulty of dealing with Moscow even when the two countries ostensibly share common interests. Although Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed an agreement would be reached before the end of the month, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin greeted Clinton with an announcement that the nuclear plant Russia is helping Iran build in Bushehr will begin operations this summer.
Clinton called the decision “premature.” She continued: “Iran is entitled to civil nuclear power; it is a nuclear weapons program that it is not entitled to.”
This is the latest example of Moscow’s steps that undermine the bilateral relationship.
President Obama can press the “reset” button all he wants, but it doesn’t seem to matter because when it comes to arms control and Iran, Russian policy ranges from unhelpful to outright disruptive.
Despite recent hints that Russia is more willing to go along with Iran sanctions, the Administration needs to accept that the Kremlin will not be as cooperative as the U.S. would like them to be in deterring Teheran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. “Powerful Russian special interests–security, nuclear, oil and gas, and the military-industrial complex–are vehemently opposed to any significant reversal of Russian policy toward Iran,” argues Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Dr. Ariel Cohen. “Therefore, it is naïve, if not dangerous, to hope that Moscow will provide decisive assistance in the U.N. Security Council or bilaterally vis-à-vis Iran.”
As President Obama has become increasingly involved in the START follow-on negotiations, he has slowly discovered the challenge of concluding a deal. In particular, Russia’s insistence on linking arms-control to missile defense has been one of the more recent points of contention.
It turns out that charming Putin and Medvedev into changing their positions on issues of great importance to US national interests is a lot harder than expected.
Jeffrey Chatterton currently is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/About/Internships-Young-Leaders/The-Heritage-Foundation-Internship-Program
The New York Times reports that the Obama Administration will probably change the United States’ nuclear policy in its upcoming Nuclear Posture Review. Specifically, President Obama would like to reduce the American nuclear arsenal by thousands of weapons but update the technology of the existing stockpile.
The Nuclear Posture Review will outline important steps toward the new American policy on nuclear weapons, which is expected to further depart from a Cold War era posture.
“The Heritage Foundation has proposed a ‘protect and defend’ strategic posture for the U.S. that is based on shifting away from the retaliation-based strategic posture of the Cold War toward a more defensive posture that is adapted to the emerging international structure.”
It is possible that the Obama Administration’s policy will rely more on missile defense for protection against an attack from a country like Iran as it reduces the nuclear arsenal. Adopting a “protect and defend” strategy is the most effective way to minimize the nuclear threat.
An effective strategy promotes nuclear modernization, superior conventional weapons, and effective missile defense while reducing the likelihood of armed conflict. Arms control is not the end in itself, but an outcome of the strategy.
Heritage Fellow Baker Spring argues that “those who strongly favor nuclear disarmament should recognize that robust strategic defensive measures–including ballistic missile defenses–and conventional superiority can create a circumstance where nuclear disarmament is appropriate.”
The delay in the Nuclear Posture Review’s release is reportedly a result of intense debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates over U.S. “declaratory policy.” Biden supports limiting the circumstances under which the U.S. is willing to use nuclear weapons, which will eliminate America’s ability to strike first and prohibit the use of nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack. Gates, on the other hand, wants to maintain a flexible policy closer to the “calculated ambiguity” currently in place.
Jeffrey Chatterton is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm