In a speech in Prague (2009) in which Obama had stated “The United States has a moral responsibility to act,” a set of goals were laid out, to be achieved in 4 years. Let us first take a look at the stated goals:
First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies…. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.
To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year…. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.
To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
[T]o cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons.
[T]ogether we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.
Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon. My administration will seek engagement with Iran based on mutual interests and mutual respect. We believe in dialogue. But in that dialogue we will present a clear choice.
As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed.
[F]inally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon.
[T]oday I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.
Fast forward to 2013. After all, he has more flexibility now. With a new national security team in place, a willingness to appease Russia (see Reagan speech below article) at the expense of our own national security, everything is a go to proceed forward with the planned New START Treaty II with Russia.
They might try this with a legally binding agreement, which will likely fail as it has to have 2/3 votes in the Senate. So it it will probably be done with an “informal understanding” with Russia. Makes a person wonder how many “informal understandings” we have with other countries.
Here is a portion of what the New START Treaty entails:
The New START treaty limits each side to deploying no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons by 2018, but uses a counting rule that pretends strategic bombers carry only a single warhead, instead of up to 20. So the actual arsenals after the treaty takes effect are likely to be closer to 1,900, a number that Obama’s advisers now think is too high.
New START also imposes no limits on nuclear weapons in each country that are held in storage or considered of “tactical” or short-range use — a number estimated by independent experts as roughly 2,700 in the United States and 2,680 in Russia. Under the new deal envisioned by the administration, Russia and the United States would agree not only to cut deployed warhead levels below 1,550 to around 1,000 to 1,100 but also — for the first time — begin to constrain the size of these additional categories.
Several officials said that as a result, the total number of nuclear warheads could shrink to less than 3,500 and perhaps as low as 2,500, or a bit more than half the present U.S. arsenal, without harming security or requiring a major reconfiguration of existing missiles or bombers.
Its also worthy to note that our new Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was coauthor to “Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report,” promoting “a world without nuclear weapons.”
The Russian Iranian Alliance
Here are some key points from Amir Taheri an Iranian dissident, and former editor and chief of an Iranian newspaper:
In Iranian political folklore, Russia has long been depicted as a bear whose embrace, even if friendly, could smother you.
The dynamic persisted despite multiple changes of regime in both nations. Even after the fall of the shah and of the USSR, the Iranian tradition of keeping the Russian bear at arm’s length continued under the Khomeinist regime.
The deal that has been struck is the START Treaty which lowers our defenses and is what Russia has been waiting for. And Obama seems to be “the one” they have been waiting for. In his quest to “prove” to Russia that we will appease them, they are using that as leverage to strike a deal with Iran.
And both Moscow and Tehran regard what they see as an US strategic retreat under President Obama as an opportunity. They think that, with the United States out, no other power has the capacity to check their regional ambitions.
The Strategic Partnership
‘A strategic partnership”: So Iran and Russia describe the series of security, economic and cultural agreements they’ve signed together in the past few weeks.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Ai-Akbar Salehi arrived in Moscow this week to co-chair the first annual session of the “partnership” with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. Days earlier, a group of officers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard arrived in the Russian capital for a crash course in crowd control and civil unrest.
They’re expected to return to Iran by May and be “operational” in time for the June presidential election.
Iranian authorities are nervous about expected unrest during the elections, and so have called on Russia to help prevent an Iranian version of the “Arab Spring.” But Russia made its support conditional on signing a security treaty with Iran; Tehran complied last month.
It is important to note in regards to Iran, mentioned in Obamas 2009 speech in Prague, “My administration will seek engagement with Iran based on mutual interests and mutual respect.” Coincidentally Mr. Hagel also holds those sentiments in regards to dealing with Iran. He is also under the delusion that you can have dialogue with people who see us as the “Great Satan.” I am sure that will work as well as the sanctions posed in the past via the United Nations. Nothing like basing nuclear policy’s on “If the Iranian threat is eliminated.”
Taking into account everything that has been presented thus far, we are seeing the beginnings of quite an unholy alliance being formed.
For the first time in my life, without hesitation, I can say we are on the wrong side of history. Any seeing and hearing person can see that it not only puts our national security at risk, it is also setting up Israel, a country that we have always called an ally.
Video, Reagan speech