LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 26, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

British Terror Attack Suspect Had Watched Friend Cut to Pieces

Truthdigger of the Week: Medea Benjamin

Three Questions Left Unanswered by Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour

Taking Gay Hypocrites to Task Over Bradley Manning

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * A Cooler Century? Wait and See

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
A Call to Action
Act of Congress

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
Bad Money

Bad Money

By Kevin Phillips
$17.13

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
$26.00

more items

 
Reports

Iran’s Best Friends on Capitol Hill

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 28, 2010

By Joe Conason

Nuclear weapons treaties are like currency exchange rates—always vitally important to the national interest but often stunningly dull, not to say impenetrable. Yet Washington has suddenly been jolted awake by Republican threats to stall if not kill the Obama administration’s New START treaty.

The irony is that by doing so, they would do little to protect American security while providing moral support to Iran, North Korea and any other rogue regime seeking to arm itself with nukes.

By reducing the bilateral limits on deployed warheads and delivery systems, and by modernizing the verification and monitoring system contained in the original START treaty, the new agreement achieved a breakthrough in arms control and improved U.S. relations with Moscow. The equally important strategic objective, however, was to establish a renewed bilateral commitment to arms control that would strengthen the international effort to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Under Article Six of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nuclear-armed nations like the United States and the Russian Federation must “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” Although we obviously remain a long way from that latter goal, New START fulfills our obligations to the agreement that represents the sole global obstacle to rogue states building as many nukes as they please. The legitimacy of NPT and the will of the signatory states to enforce its provisions represent our best hope of stemming the spread of dangerous nuclear materials across the planet.

Sometimes regarded with scorn by conservatives in this country, the NPT undergirds the international campaign against an Iranian nuclear weapon—and, for that matter, against the North Korean expansion of its nuclear arsenal. Without it, there is simply no legal bulwark to stop the mullahs and dictators from working their perilous will.

Advertisement

The ratification of New START will enhance our legitimacy and cement our alliances with the Russians and Europeans in the campaign to curtail Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Confronted by this reality, the Iranian regime will no longer be able to claim that its responsibilities under the NPT are somehow excused by the “hypocrisy” of the superpowers, which supposedly should disarm before Tehran responds to world concerns over its nuclear program.

Without New START, the Iranians will once again be tempted to exploit divisions between Washington and Moscow, as they have tried to do so many times before. Indeed, every time relations between the Russians and the U.S. improve, Tehran moderates its position—and every time that central relationship is strained, Tehran is emboldened.

So why would Republicans and conservatives adopt a stance against New START that so plainly benefits Iran—when they are constantly warning about the danger posed by the mullahs and their nuclear ambitions? The most cynical explanation is that, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly admitted, their chief concern is to make sure that President Barack Obama serves only a single term. If that is their sole priority, then anything that improves his standing must be stopped or stalled, even if it is in the national security interest of the United States.

But there is an alternative explanation for their stance: pure diplomatic ineptitude. It is worth remembering that the opponents of this treaty are by and large the same geniuses who assured us that we had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein, that doing so would tame Iran and that it would cost us nothing. The result was that we wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to discover that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction—and that our blundering strengthened Tehran immensely.

Richard Burt, the Reagan administration’s chief negotiator for the original START treaty, has noted that “there are only two governments in the world that wouldn’t like to see this treaty ratified—the government in Tehran and the government in North Korea.” To that list may be added the obstructionist leaders of the GOP, whose motives are as questionable as their competence.

Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer.

© 2010 Creators.com


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By ocjim, December 2, 2010 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment

Pure and simple, those who oppose the treaty are traitors.

Report this

By srelf, December 1, 2010 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

Kyl and McConnell:

TAKE A FRIGGIN FLYIN LEAP!

Report this

By ray, November 30, 2010 at 1:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nuclear war is inevitable, it’s only a question of when?

Report this

By ozonekid, November 30, 2010 at 12:34 am Link to this comment

I am in agreement with Mr. Conason’s views regarding possible explanations for Republican intransigence on the issue of nuclear disarmament. He mentions pure political positioning, regardless of the consequences for national security, and also simple diplomatic ineptitude: both reasons completely believable, taking into consideration the profound ignorance and utter mendacity of our current crop of statesmen, from either end of the corporate slop trough. I posit one other possibility: the belief of much of the Republican base in the Apocalypse, enshrined in the incoherent and unutterably evil pseudo-religion of Christian fundamentalism. They care not of holocaust, nuclear, social, or environmental, because they believe themselves to be stewards of the Earth until the return of their deity. Exterminate the brutes.

Report this

By prosefights, November 29, 2010 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.

The most infamous quote, “Israel must be wiped off the map”, is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word “map” or the term “wiped off”. According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was “this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

We want our $22,036 back and out of these messes.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/prccrd/prccrd.htm#rivera3

Albert Gore willing, of course.

We are into microcontrollers.

http://www.prosefights.org/scriptpollute/scada/russ.htm

Report this

By samosamo, November 29, 2010 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

****************


Well, joe, you really know something the rest of
us don’t? Iran is once again producing nuclear
weapons or making them? It is bad enough to
have to sift through so much dribble being
considered esoteric state secrets but to keep
putting Iran as a member of the nuclear warhead
society is wasting copy space. Better to make that
north korea and izrael who are known to possess
nuclear weapons, not to mention our own
esoteric fucking country run by the worst of the
worse people a god, if any such one existed,
could create.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, November 29, 2010 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

«... Iran, North Korea and any other rogue regime ...» Mr Conason seems to have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that the greatest rogue regime of them all is the United States, which alas already possesses nuclear weapons and is ever ready to proclaim its willingness to use them - «all options on the table» - in itself a war crime, according to the Nürnberg criteria…

Henri

Report this

By prosefights, November 29, 2010 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

Iran, like the US, has a serious future electricity problem.

The US, we learned within the past six months, imports 93% of the uranium it consumes while, incidently, exporting coal BTUs to China and India.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/prccrd/schott/schott.htm#leer.

“There is no referral to times past when America egged on Saddam Hussein to invade Iran,” was addressed today.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/1129/Iran-nuclear-scientists-targeted-in-Tehran-blasts

Bill Payne 37 minutes ago

We filed a criminal complaint affidavit again Zibgniew Brzezinski in New Mexico 97 cv 266 for his role in inciting Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in 1980.

We are trying to enlist help of admiral william h payne [google name] to help get these unfortunate peacefully setted.

Sad to see more violence used against Iran.

Report this

By tedmurphy41, November 29, 2010 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

Strange words, Rogue States. The words, in thia statement, could mean anything, except in the context being used by Joe Conason.
What he really means are States that get up America’s nose!
There is no referral to times past when America egged on Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, or the earlier subtle support of the Shah up to his overthrow in the late 70’s, leading to the Theocratic tyranny that now pervades the Iran of the present day.
America’s overall interference has ultimately lead to a World that is extraondinarily dangerous to most of its inhabitants, and it really needs to understand this fact and act on it in a positive way.
The Middle East, where most of the unrest now comes from, could be calmed by positive action from America, starting with Palestine and the unreasonable behaviour of the Israeli settlers; do this and the rest will, slowly and naturally, fall into place. As far as Europe goes, instead of slavishly following the US down the wrong road, could make a real difference, by acting independently and positively, in helping to bring about peace in the Middle East, in our lifetimes.
The alternative just does not bear thinking about.
One single reason that these Countries may be considering nuclear weapons is purely to defend themselves against American agression…..........just check out the history books, you could even make a start from the end of the second World war, that is if you can find any of these books as they are probably hidden under all those years of accumulated dust.

Report this
markulyseas's avatar

By markulyseas, November 29, 2010 at 2:18 am Link to this comment

Interesting read.
The reason India possesses nuclear weapons is - the USA. During the 1971 war with Pakistan and the liberation of Bangladesh by Indian forces, Mr.Richard Nixon sent the Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal and threatened to nuke India. This prompted the Indian Government and its people to support a nuclear program.

And prior to this episode, Nehru had asked Mr. J.F.Kennedy to help India with aircraft during the Chinese invasion in 1962. This request was turned down by JFK.

Get the picture. India will never give up its nuclear program, START or Stop, thanks to the USA.

Report this
markulyseas's avatar

By markulyseas, November 29, 2010 at 2:07 am Link to this comment

Interesting read.
The reason India has nuclear weapons is because Mr.Richard Nixon sent the Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal during the liberation of Bangladesh and threatened India (1971). Thanks to the big Dick the Indian Government decided to manufacture their own weapons.
And previous to this episode, when Nehru asked for advanced airplanes during the Chinese invasion in 1962, Mr.J.F.Kennedy refused to help.
So whether the Talks START or Stop India is never going to give up its armaments because of precisely the past actions of the USA.
Get the picture.

Report this

By gerard, November 29, 2010 at 1:08 am Link to this comment

As long as Russia and the U.S. do not agree to cut back and eventually eliminate their nuclear weapons, Iran and North Korea (and whereall else?) will keep trying, and Israel, Pakistan, India and China will have no reason to stop stocking up. U.S. and Russia are the primary engines of this nightmare.

Report this

By Dar, November 29, 2010 at 12:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’d like to thank Joe Conason for spewing the same old propaganda garbage, about Iran developing nuclear wepaons, and how it is America’s right to stop them.

Thank you Mr.Conason for being the Democrats’ second-hand Neocon.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, November 28, 2010 at 11:38 pm Link to this comment

Here’s another thought: Let’s presume for argument’s sake that the GOP senators are genuine in their beliefs (a huge stretch when hypocrites like Kyl rail against earmarks and then clips himself a $200 mill one).

Let’s just say they TRULY believe that crap they spew, that Obama is like having Hitler in charge.  Then, from their POV, even if it risks external national security, ANYTHING to get rid of Obama is justified.

And I don’t doubt that they think that. The current crop of Republicans have such a warped, twisted and downright psycho view of American traditions, law, values and the Constitution that it’s conceivable that, to them, ANY challenge to their world view is treasonous.

Look, every policy they’ve put in, every Supreme Court justice they’ve praised, has all been to protect corporations from government interference, from lawsuits by employees and customers, from taxes, and from labor unions.  It’s clear they want the corporations to rule America with a free hand, no controls or editing functions, and that they’ll each get their piece of the pie.

As they block unemployment insurance, tax breaks for ordinary citizens, sane personal bankruptcy laws, and seek to end Social Security and Medicare, it is clear that they seek to render the citizen powerless and defenseless.

Report this

By frank, November 28, 2010 at 11:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey Joe: This is getting tiresome. So once again the true ROGUE regimes are (drumroll) isreal and its lapdog the US, Please memorize for tomorrow’s quiz.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.