Consensus from 60 Experts on Arms Control Priorities for Obama Admin.

We all know that when President-elect Obama is sworn into office on January 20, 2009, the list of issues vying for his time will be extensive. From the economy to Iraq to energy to loose nukes, he is going to face one of the – if not the – most challenging set of problems any incoming administration has faced in U.S. history. This is already a given. What's not, however, is exactly which priorities will top his agenda from day one.

To that end, the Center just released a report that identifies key recommendations for how the Obama Administration can address what every presidential candidate since 2000 has said is the gravest threat to international security: the spread of nuclear weapons and materials.

The report is the result of six meetings with 60 leading national security experts from backgrounds as diverse as think tanks, foundations, academia, advocacy, and Congress, which were co-chaired by the Center's chairman, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.) and the chairman, Sen. Gary Hart (ret.), of its sister organization, Council for a Livable World.

The "clear consensus" of the group on the top three nuclear non-proliferation priorities for the incoming administration were to:

• Provide a new direction on nuclear weapons policy, emphasizing "minimum deterrence," extension of START, and negotiations for further reductions with Russia
• Secure all vulnerable fissile material in four years to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism
• And ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

In addition, the group outlined a second tier set of priorities that included:

• Negotiations with Iran without preconditions
• Re-committing to promises made at the 1995 NPT entension
• Conditioning further deployment of the third missile defense site on proven tests
  
• And restructuring government to deal at a higher level with arms control

Find this clear, direct discussion of concrete and vital arms control priorities in its entirety on the Center's website. Find the executive summary and list of participants here.

Obama vs. McCain: Seven Areas of Agreement, and Six of Disagreement, on Nuclear Weapons

In a campaign that features back and forth on issues large and small, where Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain disagree on everything from taxes to offshore drilling to Social Security to Iraq, it is amazing how much agreement there is on nuclear weapons issues. As Executive Director John Isaacs told the Los Angeles Times on July 13, "We'll have major progress on nuclear issues no matter who is elected." In this short analysis, provided below, Isaacs lists seven areas of agreement and six of disagreement between Obama and McCain on nuclear weapons.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

NUCLEAR WEAPONS-FREE WORLD
Obama and McCain both have pledged to work towards eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide, a goal originally espoused by former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Senator Sam Nunn, and former Secretary of Defense William Perry.

DECREASE IN U.S. NUCLEAR ARSENAL
Both of the candidates seek to reduce the United States' nuclear arsenal. They have pledged to retain a reasonable nuclear deterrent while still fulfilling the United States' commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TREATY (START)
Both candidates encourage the negotiation of an extension of the START nuclear agreement with Russia. Obama introduced S. 1977 in August 2007, a bill fortifying U.S. non-proliferation policy that included provisions related to START. In his May 2008 speech on nuclear security, McCain reaffirmed the need to pursue "binding verification measures" based on those included in START.

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA)
Both candidates support strengthening the IAEA. Obama's S. 1977 resolution authorized $15 million annually for IAEA activity. McCain is also a proponent of increased funding, as well as increased transparency and compliance on the part of the nuclear countries under IAEA scrutiny.

NUNN-LUGAR COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
Both of the candidates support an increase in Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in Russia and the former Soviet Union.

FISSILE MATERIAL CUT-OFF TREATY
Both Obama and McCain have indicated that they will work for a global treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY (NPT)
Both of the candidates have affirmed their ongoing support for the NPT, emphasizing that they will work towards better global enforcement.

AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY (CTBT)
Obama supports ratification of the CTBT, while McCain said he will "reconsider" the treaty.

U.S.-INDIA 123 AGREEMENT
While both candidates voted for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement, Obama's vote included amendments making the deal conditional upon India ending its military cooperation with Iran and a presidential certification that the agreement will not be used to aid India in creating new nuclear weapons.

RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD (RRW)
Obama has stated that he does not support the Reliable Replacement Warhead at this time. McCain has yet to offer a stance on the issue.

IRAN
While both Obama and McCain consider Iran a threat, Obama has been a stronger proponent of engaging Iran in diplomatic negotiations. McCain has taken a harder line.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Obama opposes the Yucca Mountain storage facility, citing safety concerns. McCain supports the Yucca Mountain facility.

MISSILE DEFENSE
Obama is not convinced of the necessity of the expansive missile defense plan laid out by the Bush administration (which calls for a third missile defense site to be built in Europe). McCain, however, is a strong supporter.

Research assistance provided by Kimberly Mills and Meghan Warren.

Reif and Tomero: The Rush to a Flawed Nuclear Deal

The Center’s Kingston Reif and Leonor Tomero rebuked Bill Emmott on the U.S.-India nuclear deal in Saturday’s Washington Post. The text of their letter to the editor is provided below.

The Rush to a Flawed Nuclear Deal
Saturday, July 12, 2008; A12

In his July 7 op-ed piece, "New Life for the India Nuclear Pact," Bill Emmott said that Congress must not allow India's close ties with Iran to hold up the U.S.-India nuclear deal and that the deal is worth pursuing.

In reality, the India-Iran relationship should be cause for concern. The two countries have undertaken two joint naval exercises, and Indian companies have been subject to sanctions by the United States for exporting expertise and technology related to weapons of mass destruction to Iran.

Ultimately, however, India's close relationship with Iran isn't the most serious problem with the pact. Rather than integrating India into the nonproliferation mainstream, the proposed deal would set a risky double standard that would shatter the delicate bargain upon which the global nonproliferation regime is based.

In addition, by increasing India's capability to produce nuclear weapons, the deal will exacerbate an already perilous nuclear arms race in South Asia, because Pakistan is likely to respond by expanding its own nuclear capability.

The Bush administration's desire to complete the deal before it leaves office cannot be allowed to come to fruition at the expense of key U.S. nonproliferation objectives. The deal should be left to the next administration and the next Congress, where, we hope, its numerous shortcomings will be remedied.

KINGSTON REIF
Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow

LEONOR TOMERO
Director of Nonproliferation
Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Washington

Reif: Mitchell Wrong on Third Missile Defense Site in Europe

Scoville Fellow at the Center and regular contributor to NoH, Kingston Reif, penned a terrific letter to the editor in the Washington Times today. Reif pokes a few holes in a commentary by A. Wess Mitchell on the push for a third missile defense site in Europe. The full letter is provided below.

Iran can be deterred

In "Radar shield quest" (Commentary, Tuesday), A. Wess Mitchell makes three strategic arguments in favor of extending the U.S. missile defense system to a third site in Europe. All of them suffer from numerous flaws. First, the claim that the third site enjoys growing support from NATO obscures the fact that at the April NATO summit in Bucharest, NATO members merely stated that they "recognize" - rather than "welcome" or "support" - the contribution the system could make to European security. Ultimately, the alliance has not pledged to develop any missile defenses.

Second, it is unlikely that the third site would enhance U.S. leverage in negotiations with Iran. Our intelligence community has concluded that a state seeking to attack the U.S. homeland would find it far simpler and less expensive to launch a nuclear attack via shorter-range cruise missiles, cargo shipments or terrorism. These are all threats long-range missile defenses in Europe would be powerless to combat.

Third, the insinuation that Iran cannot be deterred is based on conjecture rather than fact. Iranian foreign policy, since the Islamic Revolution has been guided by the principles of realpolitik, not millenarian fanaticism.

KINGSTON REIF
Scoville Fellow
Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Washington

McCain vs. Obama on National Security Issues

The Center’s Executive Director, John Isaacs, put together a terrific analysis which compares and contrasts Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama's positions on Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons, missile defense, North Korea, and others. Excerpted below are the relevant portions; the full analysis can be found here.

The two major presidential candidates left standing would make major changes to the national security and foreign policies carried out by the George W. Bush administration over the last seven years. Not surprisingly, exactly what kind of changes depends on who ends up on the steps of Capitol Hill taking the oath of office in January 2009 -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

The following analysis is based on several indicators: the candidates' U.S. Senate voting records; their national security platforms as laid out in articles, op-eds and speeches; and their responses to queries in debates, public appearances and questionnaires. Although campaign pledges and voting records do not always accurately translate into actual policy, they can provide important clues as to the future president's inclinations.

IRAN POLICY

President Bush has displayed unremitting hostility toward the radical regime dominating Iran, a country that U.S. intelligence sources report had previously been pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He branded Iran part of the "axis of evil" and promoted regime change as the preferred U.S. policy. With a few limited exceptions, the United States under Bush has refused to talk directly with Iran.

McCain has been clear about his position on Iran. In February 2008, he told an audience: "I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions." He also rejects "unconditional dialogues" with Iran.

Obama has delivered messages on Iran that were more mixed. He has said "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." In a June 2008 speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, he refused to take the military option against Iran off the table: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts."

In the same speech, however, Obama promised: "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests." He has said also that it "would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran" and condemned the administration's "saber-rattling" on Iran. Obama missed a vote on a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama called the amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he had cosponsored an earlier bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

World free of nuclear weapons: In 2007, a bipartisan group of senior and former government officials called for moving toward a "world free of nuclear weapons." In their article by that name, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and former Secretary of Defense William Perry urged the United States to lead an international effort to rethink traditional deterrence, reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles and take other steps toward the longer term goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Obama has been clear in his support of their effort. In response to a Council for a Livable World questionnaire, he promised: "As president, I will take the lead to work for a world in which the roles and risks of nuclear weapons can be reduced and ultimately eliminated."

In a May 2008 speech, McCain also endorsed the concept: "A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, 'our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.' That is my dream, too."

New nuclear weapons: The Bush administration has put forward proposals to build a new generation of nuclear weapons; however, these plans might be seen as conflicting with U.S. efforts to restrain other states' nuclear ambitions. McCain has supported the proposed new nuclear weapons programs. In four key Senate votes from 2003 to 2005, McCain voted to proceed with the work on such weapons. But in his May 2008 speech, he declared: "I would cancel all further work on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not make strategic or political sense." McCain did not express an opinion on another new nuclear weapons program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Obama, only in the Senate for the fourth vote, opposed the new weapons. He has not been categorical in response to the Council for a Livable World's queries about his position on new nuclear weapons, responding that he did not support "a premature decision to produce the [Reliable Replacement Warhead]."

Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT): One of the longest sought goals of the nuclear age has been a global ban on all nuclear test explosions as an important step to advance nuclear nonproliferation. In 1996, after 50 years of work, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed and opened for ratification. However, three years later, the Senate decisively rejected the treaty. Although the United States has not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1992, the Bush administration has not put the treaty forward for a new vote.

McCain voted against the treaty, stating at the time: "The viability of our nuclear deterrent is too central to our national security to rush approval of a treaty that cannot be verified and that will facilitate the decline of that deterrent." More recently, McCain has committed to continuing the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing that has existed since 1992, and promised to take "another look" at the test ban treaty. Although Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the 1999 vote, he has promised to make the test ban treaty a priority of his first term in office and pledged to work to rebuild bipartisan support for the treaty.

Nuclear non-proliferation: Efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries have faltered during the Bush administration. McCain has promised expanded proliferation efforts, increasing funding for American non-proliferation programs, strengthening international treaties and institutions to combat proliferation, increasing funding for the International Atomic Energy Administration and negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

Obama has committed to securing all vulnerable nuclear weapons materials around the world within four years of taking office: "I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials during my first term in office." He has also promised to seek a global ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and "dramatic reductions" in nuclear weapons stockpiles and a strengthened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

MISSILE DEFENSE

In 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and since then has moved swiftly to deploy national missile defense interceptors in Alaska and California. The latest fiscal budget request for 2009 is $12.3 billion for all forms of missile defense.

McCain has declared that he "strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses." His votes in the Senate back up that claim: he opposed all three amendments to cut the program in 2004. In a 2001 speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, he advocated abandoning the ABM Treaty.

Obama has been critical of the Bush missile defense plans: "The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes." Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed the vote. Obama has not indicated plans for missile defense upon assuming the presidency.

Missile defense site in Europe: McCain has also been clear in his support for a third missile defense site in Europe that is bitterly opposed by Russia. Congress cut a portion of the funding for the program in 2007 in advance of approval from the two Central European countries. In an October 2007 debate, McCain said: "I don't care what [President Vladimir Putin's] objections are to it." He has also described the system as a "hedge against potential threats" from Russia and China.

Obama has been less clear what he would do with the Bush proposal, but indicated that he would not allow the program "to divide 'new Europe' and 'old Europe.'" He also suggested that: "If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies, we should -- but only when the system works."

NORTH KOREA

During the last seven years, it is believed that North Korea reprocessed enough plutonium for about six to ten nuclear weapons. In 2006, North Korea became the ninth country in the world to test a nuclear weapon. In the last 12 months, negotiations among six countries -- the six-party talks including the United States, North Korea, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea – produced an agreement where North Korea would disable its facility and provide a full declaration of its nuclear sites and activities. In exchange, the United States would beging the process of removing North Korea from the terrorist list, easing economic sanctions and moving toward normalization of U.S.-North Korea and Japan-North Korea relations.

After President Bush announced on June 26 that North Korea would be taken off the state-sponsored terrorism list in response to North Korea's declaration of its nuclear program, Obama called the move "a step forward." He went on to say: "We should continue to pursue the kind of direct and aggressive diplomacy with North Korea that can yield results. The objective must be clear: the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs."

McCain was a bit less effusive, calling the announcement "a modest step forward." He added: "Our goal has been the full, permanent and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula . . . If we are unable to fully verify the declaration submitted today and if I am not satisfied with the verification mechanisms developed, I would not support the easing of sanctions on North Korea."

OTHER ISSUES IN BRIEF

U.S.-India nuclear deal: McCain and Obama both voted for the U.S.-India nuclear deal in 2006, but Obama also voted for amendments to condition the deal on India ending military cooperation with Iran and a presidential certification that nuclear cooperation with India will not aid India in making more nuclear weapons. McCain continues to endorse the treaty "as a means of strengthening our relationship with the world's largest democracy, and further involving India in the fight against proliferation."

Obama, McCain, and Arms Control in 2009

We know what McCain claimed in his most recent speech on nuclear weapons and nuclear policy, but do any of those positions differ from his previous stances? Where does he stand relative to Obama on issues of arms control?

Find out in the Center's recent side-by-side analysis of the two presumptive presidential nominees' positions on issues of national security, including RRW, START, the CTBT, Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, and relations with India, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

Leonor Tomero and John Isaacs, with research assistance from star intern Kimberly Mills, find among other things, that:

• McCain's position on building new nuclear weapons represents a significant departure from his past legislative votes.

• Obama introduced legislation to - among other things - take action on renewing START.
  

• Despite our already tenuous relationship with Russia, McCain wants to ensure that the G-8 "becomes again a club of leading market democracies" that excludes Russia.

Find out more in the full comparison.

Vote Results on Amendments to the FY09 Defense Authorization Bill

In good news, the Pearce (NM) amendment on the Reliable Replacement Warhead failed 145-271, with 227 Democrats and 44 Republicans voting against the measure. (Roll No. 358) The amendment would “amend title XXXI (DOE National Security Programs) to remove $10 million in funding for energy conservation on military installations and increase funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program by $10 million.”

In bad news, the Tierney (MA) amendment on missile defense failed 122-292, with 117 Democrats and 5 Republicans voting in favor. (Roll No. 357) The amendment would “reduce funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $966.2 million. It would provide $75 million for the Cooperation Threat Reduction program, $592 million for the nonproliferation and WMD programs of the Energy Department, $30 million for impact aid to help local educational agencies provide support to dependents of service members, $30 million for family support of wounded service members, $30 million for suicide prevention programs for service members, and $10 million for a pilot program to identify and retrain wounded service members as military health professionals to treat other wounded service members. Any remaining funds would be used to fund National Guard and Reserve shortfalls, especially in connection with homeland security activities.”

In good news, the Franks (AZ) amendment on missile defense failed 186-229, with 215 Democrats and 14 Republicans voting against. (Roll No. 356) The amendment would “add $719 million to the Missile Defense Agency’s budget. This amendment directs the Department of Defense to utilize the $719 million for Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, and Tests & Targets within the Missile Defense Agency account portfolio. The offset for the $719 million is to be determined by the Secretary of Defense from title II of the bill (Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation).”

The Spratt (SC) amendment on Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities was agreed to by voice vote. The amendment “[r]equires the DNI, on an annual basis, to submit to Congress an update of the National Intelligence Estimate entitled "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" and dated November 2007. Such update may be submitted in classified form. The President shall notify Congress in writing within 15 days of determining that Iran has met or surpassed any major milestone in its nuclear weapons program or that Iran has undertaken to accelerate, decelerate, or cease the development of any significant element within its nuclear weapons program.”

There was no vote on the Schiff (CA) amendment on accidental nuclear launch. The amendment would “require the Defense Secretary to study methods to verifiably reduce the likelihood of accidental nuclear launch by any nation. The Secretary must report to Congress on the results of the study within 6 months.”

White House on the FY09 Defense Authorization Bill

The White House released its “Statement of Administration Policy” on the FY09 Defense Authorization bill today. Below are the relevant portions on Iran, missile defense, and RRW.

Iran: The Administration also strongly opposes any amendments that would restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran.

Missile Defense: The Administration strongly opposes the significant reduction of over $700 million to our missile defense programs, including European Missile Defense, Airborne Laser, the Multiple Kill Vehicle, and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. In addition, the Administration strongly opposes any potential amendment that would impose even more dramatic reductions to missile defense funding. The Administration is particularly concerned with the reduction of $371 million for the European Missile Defense program, which could jeopardize the security of the United States and our European allies by delaying the fielding of missile defense assets to protect against the emerging missile threat posed by Iran.

Reliable Replacement Warhead: The Administration opposes the redirection of all funding requested for the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration's Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which is needed to improve the security, reliability and maintainability of our aging nuclear stockpile.

Amendments to the FY09 Defense Authorization Bill

Provided below is a list of relevant amendments permitted by the House Rules Committee to the FY09 Defense Authorization bill. Votes will likely come tomorrow.

4. Spratt (SC): 20 minutes of debate – Iran National Intelligence Estimate
Requires the DNI, on an annual basis, to submit to Congress an update of the National Intelligence Estimate entitled "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" and dated November 2007. Such update may be submitted in classified form. The President shall notify Congress in writing within 15 days of determining that Iran has met or surpassed any major milestone in its nuclear weapons program or that Iran has undertaken to accelerate, decelerate, or cease the development of any significant element within its nuclear weapons program.

6. Franks (AZ): 20 minutes - Missile defense increased
Would add $719 million to the Missile Defense Agency’s budget. This amendment directs the Department of Defense to utilize the $719 million for Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, and Tests & Targets within the Missile Defense Agency account portfolio. The offset for the $719 million is to be determined by the Secretary of Defense from title II of the bill (Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation).

23. Tierney (MA): 20 minutes – Missile defense cut and transferred
Would reduce funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $966.2 million. It would provide $75 million for the Cooperation Threat Reduction program, $592 million for the nonproliferation and WMD programs of the Energy Department, $30 million for impact aid to help local educational agencies provide support to dependents of service members, $30 million for family support of wounded service members, $30 million for suicide prevention programs for service members, and $10 million for a pilot program to identify and retrain wounded service members as military health professionals to treat other wounded service members. Any remaining funds would be used to fund National Guard and Reserve shortfalls, especially in connection with homeland security activities.

33. Pearce (NM): 10 minutes – Reliable replacement warhead
Would amend title XXXI (DOE National Security Programs) to remove $10 million in funding for energy conservation on military installations and increase funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program by $10 million.

43. Schiff (CA): 5 minutes – accidental nuclear launch
Would require the Defense Secretary to study methods to verifiably reduce the likelihood of accidental nuclear launch by any nation. The Secretary must report to Congress on the results of the study within 6 months.

Potential Amendments to the FY09 Defense Authorization Bill Related to Iran, Missile Defense, and Nuclear Weapons

Provided below is a list of amendments related to Iran, missile defense, and nuclear weapons submitted to the House Rules Committee for the FY09 Defense Authorization bill. It is unclear which amendments the Committee will permit to be offered.

Iran

Franks (AZ), #53
States the Sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should develop and maintain a viable military option to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from successfully developing or deploying a nuclear weapons capability.

Spratt (SC), #128
Requires the DNI, on an annual basis, to submit to Congress an update of the National Intelligence Estimate entitled "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" and dated November 2007. Such update may be submitted in classified form. The President shall notify Congress in writing within 15 days of determining that Iran has met or surpassed any major milestone in its nuclear weapons program or that Iran has undertaken to accelerate, decelerate, or cease the development of any significant element within its nuclear weapons program.

Missile Defense

Bishop, Sanford (GA), #95
Would provide 180 days of transitional health care to those service members who separate honorably from active duty and agree to serve in the Guard or Selected Reserve at no charge to the service member. It would offset the cost by cutting $22 million from the Missile Defense Agency.

Franks (AZ), #52
Would add $719 million to the Missile Defense Agency’s budget. This amendment directs the Department of Defense to utilize the $719 million for Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, and Tests & Targets within the Missile Defense Agency account portfolio. The offset for the $719 million is to be determined by the Secretary of Defense from title II of the bill (Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation).

Franks (AZ), #54
Would add $300 million to the Missile Defense Agency’s budget for Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. The $300 million shall be divided between both programs in a manner deemed appropriate by the Department of Defense. The offset for the $300 million would be determined by the Secretary of Defense from accounts outside of the MDA portfolio of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation accounts

Gonzalez (TX), #26
Would rename the “National Casualty Care Research Center” as the "National Casualty Care and Trauma Research Center.” It also changes the authorization level for this Center from $1 million to $5 million. The increase is offset by a $4 million reduction in the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program.

Tierney (MA), #115
Would reduce funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $966.2 million. It would provide $75 million for the Cooperation Threat Reduction program, $592 million for the nonproliferation and WMD programs of the Energy Department, $30 million for impact aid to help local educational agencies provide support to dependents of service members, $30 million for family support of wounded service members, $30 million for suicide prevention programs for service members, and $10 million for a pilot program to identify and retrain wounded service members as military health professionals to treat other wounded service members. Any remaining funds would be used to fund National Guard and Reserve shortfalls, especially in connection with homeland security activities.

Tierney (MA), #116
Provides that it is the policy of the United States not to deploy any weapon system designed to intercept an intermediate-range or long-range ballistic missile until the Defense Secretary certifies to Congress that the weapon system has successfully demonstrated the ability to track, detect, and intercept a warhead launched by a facsimile of the missiles expected to be deploye

Nuclear Weapons

Pearce (NM), #39
Would amend title XXXI (DOE National Security Programs) to remove $10 million in funding for energy conservation on military installations and increase funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program by $10 million.

Pearce (NM), #40
Provides that of the $9.3 billion authorized for the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (title XXXI of the bill), the amount authorized for the directed stockpile is increased by $50 million, of which $35 million is for Pit Manufacturing and $15 million is for Pit Manufacturing Capability. The increase is offset by a $50 million reduction in funds for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.

Schiff (CA), #13
Would require the Defense Secretary to study methods to verifiably reduce the likelihood of accidental nuclear launch by removing weapons of the United States, Russia, China, and others from hair-trigger alert. The Secretary must report to Congress on the results of the study within 6 months.

Schiff (CA), #14
Would require the Energy Secretary to prepare a research and development plan to prioritize research and development efforts at DOE and the national labs overseen by DOE. The plan should describe the technical capabilities required (1) to enable a robust nuclear forensic response to a nuclear explosion or interdiction of nuclear materials or weapons worldwide and (2) to develop an international database containing data on nuclear material to enable the attribution of nuclear material or weapons to their sources. DOE shall report to the congressional defense committees within 6 months on the plan and within 18 months on implementation of the plan

Highlights of Dem Prez Debate in Philadelphia

Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia included a brief discussion of foreign policy issues, but was largely a rehash of previous positions.

Following an extensive spat over Obama’s “bitter” comment, Clinton’s exaggerated Bosnia experience, and comments made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the candidates finally got down to the key foreign policy issues of Iraq and Iran.

Regarding the latter, Obama highlighted the need to “keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians” through direct talks and a “carrots and sticks” approach, noting that he would not take any options “off the table” in this respect. He stated that an Iranian attack on Israel would be “unacceptable” and that the U.S. “would take appropriate action.”

Clinton stated her desire to create an “umbrella of deterrence” that went beyond Israel to include other countries in the region, suggesting that the U.S. create a “security agreement vis-a-vis Iran” with these countries. She also advocated low-level diplomatic engagement with Iran, deterring other countries in the region from acquiring their own nuclear weapons, and rallying the world to impose sanctions on Iran and engage the country diplomatically to prevent this acquisition. Clinton also stated, however, that “an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation.”

Provided below is the full exchange between Obama and Clinton. Key points are bolded. The full transcript can be found here.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let's stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.

I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.

Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.

And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don't now have.

Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.

And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.

And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.

Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.

John Isaacs: An Early Look Ahead: McCain, Clinton and Obama on National Security Issues

The Center’s Executive Director, John Isaacs, recently wrote a terrific piece on what to expect from McCain, Clinton, and Obama in terms of national security issues.

Key sections are provided below.

Policy toward Iran

President Bush has displayed unremitting hostility toward the radical regime dominating Iran, a country that U.S. intelligence sources report had previously been pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He branded Iran part of the “axis of evil” and promoted regime change as the preferred U.S. policy. With a few limited exceptions, the United States under Bush has refused to talk directly with Iran.

McCain has been clear about his position on Iran. In early February, he told an audience: “I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.” 10 He also rejects “unconditional dialogues” with Iran. 11

Obama and Clinton have delivered messages on Iran that were more mixed. Obama has promised to open a dialogue with Iran without preconditions to attempt to work out a solution. 12 However, he has called Iran “a threat to all of us” and suggested in March 2007 that the military option should remain on the table. 13 At the same time, he has said that it “would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran” and condemned the administration’s “saber-rattling” on Iran. 14

Clinton has pledged to reach out immediately to Iran, saying, “you don’t make peace with your friends. You have got to deal with … people whose interests diverge from yours.” 15 At the same time, she has indicated that she remains open to all options, including military ones. 16 Clinton has also declared: “We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.” 17 She voted for a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. 18 Obama missed that vote but called the amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he had cosponsored an earlier bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. 19

Nuclear Weapons

In 2007, a bipartisan group of senior and former government officials called for moving toward a “world free of nuclear weapons.” 20 In their article by that name, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), and former Secretary of Defense William Perry urged the United States to lead an international effort to rethink traditional deterrence, reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles, and take other steps toward the longer term goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Obama has been clear in his support of their effort. In response to a Council for a Livable World questionnaire, he promised: “As president, I will take the lead to work for a world in which the roles and risks of nuclear weapons can be reduced and ultimately eliminated.” 21 While Clinton said that she supported the goal of a nuclear-free world, she was less specific in what she would do if elected: “As president, I will work to implement the sensible near-term steps” to achieve the objective. McCain has made no known statement on the plan from Kissinger et al., but he has promised to reduce nuclear weapons if elected. 22

New Nuclear Weapons

The Bush administration has forwarded proposals to build a new generation of nuclear weapons; however, these plans might be seen as conflicting with U.S. efforts to restrain other states’ nuclear ambitions.

McCain has supported the proposed new nuclear weapons programs. In four key Senate votes from 2003 to 2005, McCain voted to proceed with the work on such weapons. 23 Clinton voted against these programs all four times. She was clear in response to a Council for a Livable World questionnaire: “The Bush administration has dangerously put the cart before the horse, planning to rush ahead with new nuclear weapons without any considered assessment of what we need these weapons for or what the impact of building them would be on our effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.” 24 Obama, only in the Senate for the fourth vote, also opposed the new weapons. He was less categorical to the council’s queries, responding that he did not support "a premature decision to produce the [Reliable Replacement Warhead]." 25

Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

One of the longest sought goals of the nuclear age has been a global ban on all nuclear test explosions as an important step to advance nuclear nonproliferation. In 1996, after 50 years of work, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed and opened for ratification. However, three years later, the Senate decisively rejected the treaty. Although the United States has not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1992, the Bush administration has not put the treaty forward for a new vote.

McCain voted against the treaty, stating at the time: “The viability of our nuclear deterrent is too central to our national security to rush approval of a treaty that cannot be verified and that will facilitate the decline of that deterrent.” 26 There is little evidence that McCain will bring the treaty before the Senate; instead, he has written about strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 27 Although neither Clinton nor Obama were in the Senate at the time of the 1999 vote, both have promised to make the test ban treaty a priority of their first term in office and pledged to work to rebuild bipartisan support for the treaty. 28

National Missile Defense

In 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and since then has moved swiftly to deploy national missile defense interceptors in Alaska and California. The latest fiscal budget request for 2009 is $12.3 billion for all forms of missile defense.

McCain has declared that he “strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses.” 29 His votes in the Senate back up that claim: he opposed all three amendments to cut the program in 2004. 30 In a 2001 speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, he advocated abandoning the ABM Treaty. 31

Obama has been critical of the Bush missile defense plans: “The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes.” 32 Clinton’s position has been more ambiguous. Of three key votes in 2004, she voted in effect for missile defense once and against it twice. However, she criticized President Bush’s decision in 2001 to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and both she and Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed the vote. 33 She also has criticized the Bush administration of “focusing obsessively on expensive and unproven missile defense technology.” 34 Neither Clinton nor Obama has indicated plans for missile defense upon assuming the presidency.

Missile Defense Site in Europe

McCain has also been clear in his support for a third missile defense site in Europe that is bitterly opposed by Russia. Congress cut a portion of the funding for the program in 2007 in advance of approval from the two Central European countries. In an October 2007 debate, McCain said: "I don't care what [President Vladimir Putin's] objections are to it." 35 Obama has not been clear what he would do with the Bush proposal, but indicated that he would not allow the program “to divide ‘new Europe’ and ‘old Europe.’” 36 It is also unclear what the Clinton policy would be.

Other Issues in Brief

[snip]

U.S.-India nuclear deal: McCain, Obama and Clinton all voted for the U.S.-India nuclear deal in 2006, but Obama and Clinton also voted for amendments to condition the deal on India ending military cooperation with Iran and a presidential certification that nuclear cooperation with India will not aid India in making more nuclear weapons. 38

[snip]

North Korea: Obama has called for “sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy” with North Korea; Clinton for “direct contact, engagement” with Pyongyang. 40 McCain argues: “It is unclear today whether North Korea is truly committed to verifiable denuclearization.” 41

Nuclear nonproliferation: Clinton and Obama have committed to securing all vulnerable nuclear weapons materials around the world within four years of taking office. 42 McCain has endorsed strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency and putting the burden of proof on suspected violators of the NPT. 43

The Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History

JustForeignPolicy.org released yesterday an excellent video on the historical backdrop to the current standoff with Iran. It reveals the dangers of an armed U.S. intervention and promise of diplomacy and stars the Center's Senior Military Fellow, Lt. Gen Robert Gard (USA, ret.), as well as a stellar group of Iran experts, including Stephen Kinzer, Trita Parsi, and Barbara Slavin. The video complements the organization's national Folly of Attacking Iran Tour. Check it out below.

Resignation of Bush Administration Moderate May Signal Shift in Policy Direction

On October 21st, 2007, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani resigned, allegedly because "he wanted to focus on 'other political activities." Larijani was a force of moderation and compromise within the Iranian foreign policy establishment, and had "faced increasing challenges from [Iranian President] Ahmadinejad," who favored a tougher approach.

Given the political context of Larijani's resignation, it was widely recognized as something other than a personal decision on the part of the nuclear negotiator. The New York Times described the "resignation" as a signal "that officials here [in Iran] may have closed the door to any possible negotiated settlement in its standoff with the West." In other words, the resignation of a moderate who had faced pressure from more hawkish higher-ups was recognized as an indicator of a shift in the ideological power balance of the Iranian administration.

Burns with the Israeli Finance Minister in August, 2007
(Source: State Department)

Today, Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, announced his resignation. According to Secretary of State Rice, Burns resigned because he "decided that it's the right moment to go back to family concerns." It has been clear for some time that Burns--along with Secretary of State Rice--has been locked in a battle over the direction of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Burns occupies a Larijani-like position within the administration, and his departure for "personal reasons" may signal a hawkish change in direction in the White House.

The split between Burns and some of his superiors was aptly described in 2006 by the New York Times, in an article on administration in-fighting over whether to negotiate with North Korea:

This is not a new debate by any stretch. Within the administration, a more hawkish wing that includes Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and John R. Bolton, the ambassador to the United Nations, has chafed against talks with any American foe, be it North Korea or Iran. Meanwhile, advocates of diplomacy, including R. Nicholas Burns and Philip D. Zelikow, two of Ms. Rice’s top lieutenants at the State Department, have sided with European allies in saying that the United States should engage its foes.

Steve Clemmons, Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, reported in an analysis of Burns' departure that this hostile dynamic has persisted throughout Burns' tenure:

Vice President Cheney's team did all it could to undermine Secretary of State Rice and her effective globe-trotting Under Secretary for Political Affairs [Nicholas Burns] in the diplomatic efforts... On nearly all of these subjects [i.e. North Korea, Iran, China, etc.], except perhaps Afghanistan, Nick Burns and Co. have been on one side of constructive efforts to stabilize global affairs and push forward positive "American global engagement" -- and Cheney's acolytes have been on another.

When one of the leading figures in a fierce administration policy battle decides that he will resign "for personal reasons," we ought to be suspicious. Moreover, Burns' announcement comes on the heels of a significant delay in the North Korea negotiations, which Cheney and his "acolytes" have always opposed. As a State Department spokesman put it, "North Korea has not yet met its commitments by providing a complete and correct declaration of its nuclear programs and [is] slowing down the process of disablement." While the extent and significance of North Korea's failure to declare is debatable, for critics of the deal this road-bump validates their initial mistrust of the North Korean leader. As John Bolton argued in a Wall Street Journal editorial, this issue provides the U.S. "an opportunity to extricate itself from this unwise and dangerous deal."

It is certainly possible that Nicholas Burns genuinely resigned because he wants to spend more time with his family. However, given his consistently adversarial relationship with the more hawkish members of the Bush administration and the recent events in North Korea, his resignation may actually signal a change in direction in the Bush administration. As someone who favors constructive diplomatic engagement, I sincerely hope that Burns did resign for personal reasons. As a student of politics, I fear that this resignation is attributable to forces far larger than Burns' family.

New Report: $20 Billion U.S. Arms Deal to Contain Iran No Substitute for Diplomacy

The Center’s Travis Sharp and Katie Mounts today released a tremendous report which examines the Bush administration’s decision to sell $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and other GCC states as an effort largely designed to contain Iran. They argue that the sale is another example of how the U.S. continues to use deadly technologies as the flawed currency of friendship with foreign nations.

Click here to read the online version of the report, here to read the PDF version with footnotes, or here for the press release.

The executive summary of the report follows:

In July 2007, the United States announced the sale of $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and its neighbors of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are slated to receive advanced satellite-guided bomb technology known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates will receive, inter alia, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and -2 (PAC-3 and PAC-2) missiles.

Bush administration officials have indicated that the $20 billion arms deal is primarily aimed at containing Iran. Supplementary rationales for the deal include the fortification of American influence vis-à-vis peer competitors in the Middle East, future business for the United States providing spare parts, and reassurance of Gulf allies in advance of the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

From 1999 to 2006, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia ranked in the top five in the Middle East for the total value of their arms transfer agreements with the United States (Egypt and Israel ranked 1st and 2nd, respectively). The United Arab Emirates received $7 billion in arms transfer agreements ($892 million annual average), Saudi Arabia received $6.5 billion ($815 million annual average), and Kuwait received $3 billion ($334 million annual average) during this period in inflation-adjusted Fiscal Year 2006 dollars.

The United States has consistently used deadly technologies as the currency of friendship with foreign nations. From 1999 to 2006, the value of all U.S. arms transfer agreements worldwide was slightly less than the next five highest suppliers combined (Russia, France, United Kingdom, Germany, China). The United States supplied 56% of all arms transfer agreements with the Middle East during the same period. That is five times greater than Russia's proportion, the second highest supplier, and almost twenty times greater than China's proportion.

Previous experiences with Iran and Iraq illustrate that selling arms to strategic allies can backfire if the regime or relationship changes. The United States supplied Iraq with cluster bombs and chemical weapons in the 1980s, only to fight the Iraqi military in 1991 and again in 2003 and watch helplessly in the 1980s as Saddam Hussein brutally murdered thousands of Kurds. Iran made one-third of its defense purchases from the United States during the 1970s, but the two countries are now approaching their third decade of always chilly and sometimes hostile relations.

Instead of working with countries to improve political freedom, the $20 billion sale rewards an oppressive Saudi monarchy whose human rights record has not met expectations of improvement following the accession to the throne of King Abdullah in August 2005. Moderate Muslims throughout the world resent American involvement in the perpetuation of oppressive regimes through the sale of advanced weaponry.