TPMCafe Book Clubs

« The Dirty Little Secret About Obama's Problems With Israelis and Russians | Home | Blood and Politics »

Sacrificing for spin?

By Amitai Etzioni - July 8, 2009, 10:29AM

I yield to no one in my delight that President Obama is bringing a whole new attitude to international relations, and I salute his consistent efforts to restore the good name of the United States across the world. The new goodwill was supposed to make it easier for the US and other nations to work together. What is happening instead, at least in dealing with Russia, is that the Obama administration is making major concessions--in order to make it seem that the new spin is working.

The Russians are very excited about the Bush-designed plan to position a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. The Obama administration is moving toward an agreement to place the missile defense some other place, one the Russians approve of, and to make it into a joint defense project. Thus, the US satisfies in full a major Russian demand--getting what in exchange? A temporary pause to Russia cussing us out?

The Russians are very keen to reduce the number of strategic nuclear arms they keep deployed because their economy is in shambles, their military is very poorly equipped and they have a very hard time to find the funds needed to keep it going. The United States agreed to a reduction, in exchange for what?

At the same time the Russians have not granted the US what it most needs from them: Using their leverage with Iran to convince it to stop its program that will lead it in short order to command nuclear weapons. This is despite the fact that objective observers agree that an Iran as a nuclear power, and the resulting arms race in the Middle East, poses at least as much threat to Russia as it does to the US and its allies, the Saudis and the Israelis.

You may ask, how can anyone dare to call the main part of the Obama-Medvedev agreement "spin," when it entails cutting nuclear arms? However, the agreement--yet to be worked out--is anticipated to call for reducing the number warheads from the existing treaty's range of 1700 - 2200 by 2012, to a range of 1500 - 1675 by 2019...and reference is merely to deployed warheads. Those offloaded may be kept in storage, from which they can be readily redeployed. If this is not spin, what is?

I am not saying that the US should bully Russia or demand unilateral concessions or stop striking the new, more congenial, tone. However, one very good way to achieve a new tone for both sides is for them to truly help each other rather than one making major concessions and the other--taking them to the bank.

**I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this essential for a civilized dialogue.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international affairs at The George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale, 2007). He can be contacted at icps@gwu.edu. www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst.html

16 Comments

| Leave a comment

What Iranian "program that will lead it in short order to command nuclear weapons" is Amitai Etzioni talking about?? THe same program that the IAEA has not been able to find after 7 years of intensive scrutiny?

VIENNA (Reuters Fri Jul 3, 2009 ) - The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms.
"I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL312024420090703)

Posted by hass
July 8, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink

This "missile defense" plan is a big favorite of the "Cold War II" crowd, who want to re-install a big, expensive playground in which the military-industrial complex can again run free. Since the collapse of Communism, they've missed those bloated budgets for weapons that, hopefully, never have to work. We plant some missiles in Russia's backyard, egg them to hostility, and we're back in the beaucoup eyeball-to-eyeball business. Peachy!

Yeah. They needed it for protection against Iranian missiles. What utterly ridiculous Bush-era HOGWASH! Russia is perfectly capable of protecting itself. Iran is Israel's problem. Let them deal with it. Israel's lobbies wouldn't be contorting through so many hoops if the Lion of the Levant really could pull off an Iran attack without some serious blowback. That's what this pathetic dumb show is all about, and nothing more.

Guess Israel be forced to negotiate. Horrors!

Brimming with natural resources, Russia is always an attractive prize, and seemed snug in Western pockets with our oily front-men snatching up the riches. When Putin kicked out the Oligarchs, he became the most popular Russian leader since Alexander Nevsky. And... oooo... he landed on our sh*tlist.

Goodbye!

Posted by San Fernando Curt
July 8, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink

The Obama administration got exactly what it wanted - permission to fly over Russian airspace to attack Afghanistan.

I doubt that Russia has as much influence on Iran as you seem to think it does. Historically, for centuries, their relationship has been adversarial with Russia dominating Iran. If you think the Iranians have long memories about U.S. interference what do you think they think about Russia? They will never forget the WW II joint invasion by Britain and the Soviet Union, nor will they forget the decades before that of Russian domestic meddling.

For the last two decades, Russia has dragged its feet in building Iran's nuclear reactor which is pretty much what the U.S. really wants. Realistically, the U.S. knows that the program will not be stopped, that the only course of action now is to slow it down and contain it and keep Iran from turning to China to get it built. Our foolish policy of non trade and diplomatic relations with Iran has already forced it to a more stable relationship with Moscow and Beijing.

Obama doesn't need to force Russia to do anything, what it needs to do is to shut Israel's sabre rattling off. It is making the situation far worse than it already is and is creating even more tension in the pissing match we call the Middle East. It doesn't matter who is in power in Iran, they will still pursue nuclear power whether for peaceful purpose or something else.

Posted by BevD
July 8, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink

Dr. Etzioni,

You seem to be forgetting that Russia just gave us flyover rights to supply Afghanistan. That's important, and was very high on the US agenda. And their public display of assistance puts them more in the line of fire for potential jihadist reprisals, so it is not to be sniffed at. I suspect if you get away from US domestic politics and ask some of the Obama national security people "what they need most" from the Russians, they might place logistical help in fighting an actual ongoing war in Afghanistan, a war where Americans are fighting and dying, somewhat above help with those so far non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons.

Reducing their deployed nuclear weapons while the US is at the same time continuing with missile defense systems in Europe, systems that were taken off the agenda for this meeting, took quite a bit of political courage for Medvedev. He deserves props for moving forward on this, since he is probably hearing the same complaints today about weakness and onerous "concessions" with which you are trying to taunt Obama.

There really is a very important difference between deployed and stored nuclear weapons. The latter are the ones that enter into all the calculations about first strike capabilities, retaliatory capabilities, survivability etc. So this is a great start.

The point here is for the US and Russia to revive the global non-proliferation effort by taking visible global leadership of that effort, and by making headway on fulfilling their own NPT obligations. The perception of restarted momentum and great power cooperation on non-proliferation will help to revive the diplomatic effort - including eventually with Iran and later with bringing Israel into the NPT regime. The increasing global perception that nonproliferation was something that the world's rulers were only willing to impose on others, while totally neglecting to undertake it themselves, did serious damage to the nonproliferation cause during the Bush years.

In getting the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty back on track, it sets a bad precedent to attempt to strong-arm countries into ending domestic nuclear programs that they are entitled to have under the NPT. Our efforts toward Iran should be focused on increasing verification and confidence regarding non-diversion for military use, not big-footing a legal nuclear power program.

A big problem with the Bush administration foreign policy following 9/11 is that it became Israelified - by which I mean that the US administration seemingly started to see the world from the Israeli perspective, which lead to perverse miscalibrations of priorities regarding security threats to Americans, settling on priorities that are more appropriate to the Israeli context than the American one. If I were an Israeli, I might very well be more concerned with Iran than anything else, given that I would be the citizen of a small state in a hostile neighborhood. But as an American concerned about the safety of my home and my loved ones, there are more pressing issues than Iran's potential down-the-road threat to Israel.

Posted by Dan K
July 8, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink

isn't it strange that the us wants to put a "defensive" shield to "protect" eastern europe from states like iran and north korea? i guess western europe is out of range from iranian missiles or iran doens't have the cooridnates. odd isn't it?

Posted by BluePearl
July 8, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink

As has been pointed out, we got Russian support for our Afghanistan campaign. But let's delve into the deeper issue here. Etzioni wants us not to make deep cuts in our arsenal until we get something in return from Russia. Since Russia's economy is in shambles, it has to make cuts to its military already so before we agree to further cuts we should... I guess hang onto our nukes so we have something more to bargain with.

But Russia, for all its problems, is no longer our enemy or the focus of our nuclear deterrence so the only cause for criticizing our agreements to cut our arsenal or missile defense plans would be that we're leaving ourselves vulnerable to some attack. But we're not. We could cut our arsenal drastically and still blow up the world if we wanted to so no issues there.

So they're not our enemies and we don't need the weapons. So why are we keeping them? So that we have something we can get rid of later in exchange for favors? Seems a rather silly way to make policy.

Also, I see that Etzioni maintains his paranoia about Iran the super power. Odd. Truly odd.

Posted by Michael Maiello
July 8, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink

We don't know what secret agreements there are w/Russia w/regards to Iran. The issue is a delicate one as Russia unlike the US seeks to maintain positive relations w/Iran under its current leadership, and there is much reason, including face-saving, that much cooperation in this area would be non-publicized.

Also, Russian cooperation in the area of Greenhouse Gases is crucial, arguably moreso than Iran getting nukes, although that is surely not the conventional wisdom

Posted by cloudy
July 8, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink

I also thought the article was neo-cold war. Both scrapping the missile defense of Europe and reducing nukes are in our interest. Looking to get more out of the Russians on these issues is treating them like an adversary, not a potential ally. They tend to read that, anyway without rubbing their noses in it.
I also agree that the Iran situation is still unsettled and it would be foolish to make public pronouncements, whether there is common ground or not.

Posted by TomH in PA
July 8, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink

This is despite the fact that *objective observers agree that an Iran as a nuclear power, and the resulting arms race in the Middle East, poses at least as much threat to Russia as it does to the US and its allies, the Saudis and the Israelis.

This *phrase and it's variations are becoming the "heads-up" that some egregious bullshit is soon to follow.....

Unfortunately, the term "nuclear power" means different things to those with invested interests when it comes to Iran. The Israelis consider any use of nuclear power by Iran as anathema. The golem of a "resulting arms race" in the ME is always produced in order to frighten the kiddies although the fact is that none of the regimes in the region have the homegrown talent to run a nuclear reactor much less take the giant leap forward to weaponization.

What's amusing is that various of those boo-scared countries in the ME are actively seeking nuclear power generation with the approval of everyone, including Etzioni's countrymen.

As far as the gimme sought from Russia by Israel's friends, it includes a veto over what items from Russia's military arsenal can be sold to Israel's "enemies". The most critical item to be kept out of Iranian and Syrian hands is the S-300 as it; is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft-missile systems in the world today and has a reported ability to track up to 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time. It has a range of about 200 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes of 27,000 meters.

Another part of the Israeli litany of thingies that pose an "exisential threat" are Iranian missiles; what good are nukes without the means to deliver them?:

The EastWest Institute in New York, a non-partisan organization that focuses on global challenges, said Iran would not have a long-range weapon capable of delivering nuclear warheads for many years.The six U.S. and six Russian scientists who authored the report released May19 said that Iran might develop a missile with a nuclear warhead and a 1,200-mile range in six to eight years.

But they concluded that it was "virtually impossible" to predict how long it would take to produce a modern intercontinental ballistic missile. Without considerable outside assistance and technology, it would be "at least 10 to 15 years," they said, noting that there was no evidence that theTehran regime has even decided to go for an intercontinental ballistic missile.

snip]

However, the analysis cautioned that considerable obstacles remain before Iran can achieve assembly-line production of ballistic missiles."Before being able to deploy the Sajjil missile, Iran would first need to establish a production line for solid-fuel rocket motors to strict performance criteria," it said.

"This would require many static test firings and test launches over the next three to five years. . Missile advances will not occur suddenly."
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=44347

Facts are such pesky lil' things.

Posted by lally
July 8, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink

Dr. Etzioni,
If indeed your reading of reports from Moscow is correct, and

the Obama administration is moving toward an agreement to place the missile defense some other place, one the Russians approve of, and to make it into a joint defense project

that would IMHO represent a great achievement for US, which eluded us since Reagan. Imagine a joint US-Russian early warning station on a Russian base in Azerbaijan (right across the border from Iran), working together with American anti-missile sites in Saudi Arabia and Israel. In addition to many other strategic advantages, wouldn't that make more sense as a defense against Iranian threat, than the same deployment in Poland and Czech Republic? (IMHO, the latter does not pass a laugh test as a defense from Iran, and should raise concerns of any Russian government, however democratic and liberal).
At the time when Russians made similar noises in 2007 they have been brushed off by W, which has been lamented by that old fox Henri Kissinger, who knows a good deal when he sees it. As he said, it could be - or could be made - a historic breakthrough.

Putin's initiative to link NATO and Russian warning systems could be - or could be made - an historic initiative in dealing jointly with issues that threaten all countries simultaneously. It is one of those schemes easy to disparage on technical grounds but, perhaps like Reagan's Star Wars vision, is a harbinger of a future posing entirely new creative opportunities. It permits one to imagine a genuinely global approach to the specter of nuclear proliferation, which has heretofore been treated largely through national policies. And such an approach could become a forerunner for other issues of comparable dimension.
Of course, it is quite possible - perhaps even likely - that the Kremlin proposal is largely a tactical maneuver: to "expose" non-existent American designs against Russian strategic forces; to split NATO by exploring Russian proposals in the NATO-Russian Council; and to make the new proposal conditional on abandoning the planned U.S. deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic.
It would be a pity. For a successful negotiation - even a serious effort at one - would put the nonproliferation talks with Iran in a radically new framework and, in time, perhaps lead to a wider approach to other global challenges. The Russian proposal therefore deserves detailed exploration. How would such a system operate? How would the proposed system respond to its own warnings? How will other nations with comparable interests be brought into it?
If these questions can be answered positively - if, in other words, the countries involved link their strategies on the nonproliferation issue - a new framework for a host of other issues will come about. A debate started over the most destructive weapons will have culminated in sketching a road toward a more peaceful world.

Posted by anatol
July 8, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink

More evidence that Etzioni is misplaced on this site.

Posted by Flying Spaghetti Monster
July 9, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink

etzioni - The Russians are very keen to reduce the number of strategic nuclear arms they keep deployed because their economy is in shambles, their military is very poorly equipped and they have a very hard time to find the funds needed to keep it going. The United States agreed to a reduction, in exchange for what? ...

**I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this essential for a civilized dialogue

i will address the ignorance of the bloviator who calls himself amitai etzioni because i prefer clarity to inanity for essentially formed & informed dialogue.

excerpted from NTI Issue Brief: START Process and Russian Strategic Force Modernization by Nikita Perfilyev, CNS Research Assistant
Monterey Institute for International Studies, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, June 15, 2009:

[...]

On March 17, 2009, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev announced a comprehensive rearmament of the Russian military, a process that will include strategic force modernization. According to Medvedev, Russia has already begun to reequip its army; further, this effort will not be affected by falling prices for oil and gas and will accelerate through 2011.[61] The new procurement budget for 2009 is set at 1.5 trillion rubles (about $45 billion). While this announcement came amid concerns in Moscow over the performance of its conventional forces during last year's conflict with Georgia, 25 percent of the funding (almost $12 billion) will be directed to the strategic nuclear forces.[62]

Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov, head of the Russian strategic missile forces, has stated that "plans for the development of the Russian strategic rocket forces through 2016 foresee a decrease in quantity and a transformation in quality at the same time [....] Rocket systems with an extended shelf life will account for roughly 20 percent [and] new rocket systems for at least 80 percent of the forces."[63] According to Vice Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov, "by 2020 Russian strategic nuclear forces will be reequipped."[64]

This modernization will include gradual retirement of the old Soviet-built ICBMs (R-36MUTTH and R-36M2 [NATO Name SS-18], UR-100NUTTH [SS-19], Topol [SS-25]) in 2014-2022 and their replacement with a modified version of Topol-M [SS-24] — the MIRVed RS-24, which Russia plans to start deploying after the expiration of START I. The sea-based leg of the nuclear triad will consist of six Project 667BDRM Delfin (Delta IV) submarines with R-29RM Sineva missiles, which will gradually be replaced by up to eight Project 955 Borey submarines with Bulava missiles (each carrying 16 missiles with six warheads).[65] Modernization plans also envision procurement of Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers.[66] [For updates, please see: "Russia: General Nuclear Weapons Developments, www.nti.org/ db/ nisprofs/ russia/ weapons/ gendevs.htm .]

Based on these estimates, Stanford-based Russian nuclear forces expert Pavel Podvig has concluded that "Russia is planning to have about 1,400-1,600 nuclear warheads in its strategic force for some time" and "if all of Russia's currently scheduled defense programs materialize, Moscow will find itself in a situation where its strategic nuclear arsenal will start growing."[67]

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintains, however, that "modernization of Russian armed forces will not undermine, but rather strengthen international security and strategic stability." According to the MFA spokesman, Russia "does not [reject] its disarmament obligations and actively participates in nuclear weapons reductions."[68]

[...]

Russia supports further nuclear reductions, but views U.S. conventional superiority with concern. In the eyes of Moscow, deep reductions are possible only with progress along other tracks (missile defenses, overall military expenditures, etc.), so that Russia's "undiminished security" can be guaranteed. As nuclear weapon numbers decrease, Russia has emphasized that the other permanent members of the UN Security Council will have to join nuclear disarmament talks.[73] Officials from the Russian General Staff have already argued that a START I follow-on agreement should take into account the nuclear arsenals of France and the United Kingdom.[74] However, the Russian Foreign Ministry does not appear likely to insist on counting non-U.S. NATO weapons in the short term (unless and until deep reductions are at issue).

As of May 2009, however, it remained clear that both Washington and Moscow are committed to concluding a START I follow-on agreement that includes some sort of verification provisions and additional reductions. The degree of reductions, however, remain a question mark, as does the likelihood of additional, follow-on agreements codifying deeper reductions, which will have to deal with issues such as missile defense and long-range conventional weaponry. Both U.S.-Russian relations and the nuclear nonproliferation regime depend on the success of these negotiations.