On April 1, the United States and Russia agreed to negotiate a follow-on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in order to plan further nuclear weapons reductions.

The reaction from Senate Republicans: silence.

On April 5 in Prague, President Obama pledged to work for a world free of nuclear weapons.

And Republicans Senators said . . . nothing. An examination of press releases posted by more than 30 Republican Senate offices found no comments, whether positive or negative, on the President’s bold nuclear weapons vision.

Don’t think the lack of comment came from the Senate being in recess. The same day that President Obama gave his Prague speech, North Korea fired off a missile test.

The responses were immediate…

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called the test “a wake-up call.”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) condemned North Korea and called for sanctions (as well as more funding for missile defense).

Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) also found time to comment on the North Korean test.

But no one issued a press release on START or nuclear weapons elimination.

The day after the Obama address, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced weapons program cuts and increases.

A number of GOP Senators found time to condemn: Chambliss and Isakson of Georgia on ending the F-22 program; Thune of South Dakota unhappy about shelving the next generation bomber; several Senators on missile defense cuts. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) denounced Obama for disarming America in a time of war.

Some even praised: Hatch of Utah happy with the air tanker decision; Collins of Maine delighted that Maine shipyards may build all three DDG-1000 destroyers; McCain with the entire plan.  

But the nuclear weapons decisions? Nada, zip, zilch. Not a word.

What does it mean? Is silence golden? Is silence consent? Or is silence, well, just silence?

Republicans will rush to the ramparts to protect conventional weapons programs in their states, support missile defense and denounce North Korea. But they are reluctant to either support or oppose new policies on nuclear weapons.  

During the Bush years, the GOP was only lukewarm about nuclear weapons. The fight against new nuclear weapons was led for years by Ohio Republican Rep. David Hobson.  

Last year, when Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) tried on the House floor to add $10 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead, he lost 145 – 271, with 44 Republicans voting against him.

What’s the bottom line? It appears Republican Senators are “reserving their options” on a new nuclear weapons treaty. Which gives arms controllers time to educate lawmakers and the public about the benefits of a follow on to START.

And that is good news indeed.

The spat between the United States and China over the recent naval incident in the South China Sea recalls another standoff involving the U.S. Navy a year ago.

On January 6, 2008, five Iranian speed boats circled three U.S. Navy warships. Before they turned away, one of the U.S. ships was reportedly on the verge of firing at the Iranian vessels. “I do not have a direct link with my counterpart in the Iranian Navy,” Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of U.S. Naval Operations, told reporters in the aftermath of the incident.

That could change soon. Congress is crafting a proposal to set up a hotline between Iranian and U.S. naval officials operating in the Persian Gulf.

The resolution, introduced today by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Geoff Davis (R-KY), calls for the United States to negotiate an “Incidents At Sea Arrangement” with Iran along the lines of the 1972 agreement that helped prevent naval incidents between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The arrangement between Washington and Moscow called for measures to avoid collisions; a requirement to maintain a safe distance from enemy ships under surveillance; and an obligation to inform vessels of submarine maneuvers near them. The agreement ended a series of incidents — ranging from ships bumping into one another to aircraft coming dangerously close to each other — that the two superpowers worried could set off a more serious confrontation.

Today, U.S.-Iranian naval interactions in the Persian Gulf pose a similar risk. A transit route for 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade, the Gulf is host to numerous U.S. naval ships. American ships operating in the Gulf currently have little or no protocol for dealing with the Iranian navy, which includes six submarines, five principal surface ships, 320 coastal and patrol ships, five mine warfare ships, and 21 amphibious ships. “This is a very volatile area,” said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last year. “The risk of an incident, and of an incident escalating, is real.”

The 30-cent jump in oil prices that followed the January 2008 skirmish between U.S. and Iranian ships is a preview of what a more serious confrontation in the Gulf could mean for energy prices and the world economy. Of course, should an open confrontation between the U.S. and Iranian navies occur, the situation could quickly escalate out of control with dire military, humanitarian, and political repercussions.

An “Incidents At Sea Arrangement” between the United States and Iran would help protect American lives and treasure in the world’s most important strategic oil chokepoint. It would also start a dialogue between the two countries that could help build trust and establish momentum for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, a top priority for the Obama administration.

We’re pleased to announce that just yesterday, the Center’s Senior Diplomatic Fellow, Ambassador Peter Galbraith, was appointed U.N. deputy envoy to Afghanistan. His new appointment undoubtedly will be a challenging one as Amb. Galbraith will handle p…

NOTE: TRANSLATION AFTER JUMP

President Obama “has shown himself to be a man of his words,” Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad told the Italian center-left newspaper La Repubblica. Syria is open to mediate between the West and Iran, he added.  

Earlier this month the Obama administration sent a senior diplomatic envoy to Damascus, hoping to find common ground on “a number of issues,” which probably included Syria’s diplomacy with Israel, its role in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and its relationship with Iran.  

The United Sates has long tried to increase Iran’s political isolation in the region by driving a wedge between Damascus and Tehran. Assad, though, is playing his cards carefully.

On March 17, Syria’s foreign minister was behind the microphones gushing over Syria’s “excellent” relationship with Iran. The day after, Assad told Italian journalists that he hopes to meet president Obama “to talk.”

By seeking to position itself as a mediator, Syria seems intent on preserving the alliance with Tehran without wasting an opportunity to warm up to Washington.

Here is my translation of excerpts of Assad’s interview (here’s the original in Italian):

On President Obama

“With the withdrawal from Iraq, a commitment to peace, the closing of Guantanamo, [President Obama] has shown himself to be a man of his words. If this will be a historical turning point, though, it’s too soon to tell. This is for sure: after the night-like years of the Bush administration, we have reason to hope again.”

“First, I would like to make it clear that countries act according to national interests. That said, if we want to calculate American and Syrian interests, well, I can say that 80 percent of them coincide, and I give myself a 20 percent safety margin…An example? Here’s the first one: Iraq. The U.S. pullout takes away the main issue at the center of our differences with Washington, that is, the [U.S.] occupation of that country… We can work together for the stability of Iraq, without which the pullout cannot succeed.”

“A meeting [with Obama]? Yes, in principle, it would be a very positive sign; though I’m not looking for a photo opportunity. I hope to see him – to talk.”

On Iran

“With Iran, I stand ready to mediate.”

“When talking about Iran’s influence in Iraq we ought to make a distinction: Influence is not a negative when it is based on reciprocal respect.  Interference is another thing. Rather, if we are talking about facilitating the dialogue with Iran, we need a concrete proposal to submit to that government. For now, I’ve only received an invitation to play a certain role. And that’s fine, but it is not enough: There are still no plans, rules, specific mechanisms to submit to Tehran.”

On Israel

“We have been inches away from sealing an agreement with Israel.”

“I see the goal [of renewed negotiations] becoming more distant. I’m not worried at the thought of Netanyahu, but of a turn to the right by the Israel society, which Netanyahu’s ascent to power mirrors. Here’s the biggest obstacle to peace.”

“Only Washington can put pressure on Israel.”

On Democratic Progress in Syria

“The pace of reform has slowed down a lot, it’s true, but it has not come to a halt. Now that external pressures have diminished, it will go forth, for example adding a freely elected Senate to the Parliament, to make room for the opposition; increasingly liberalizing the media and the Internet and, after that, political parties, through an appropriate law.  However, everything must proceed gradually, at our own pace.”

On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi parliament approved a landmark security agreement with the United States. More than half of the parliament voted for the agreement, which now must be approved by the Iraqi people in a nationwide referendum to be held by July 30.

In Washington, however, neither a “yea” nor a “nay” has been heard from Congress on the agreement. Insisting it had the authority to negotiate unilaterally, the Bush administration engaged Congress only symbolically (briefings, etc.) while working out the details with Iraq.

The persistent failure to consult Congress on an agreement that affects U.S. involvement in Iraq threatens the constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches and sets a dangerous precedent for future American military engagement abroad.

The Obama administration should immediately redress this institutional deformity and submit the agreement to Congress for a vote, even if it is only a symbolic resolution.

Any peacetime U.S. troop presence on foreign territories usually is regulated through Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) between the United States and host countries. We currently have 115 such agreements. They usually deal with unexciting things, such as how supplies should be delivered and the legal status of military personnel, and come into force upon approval by the President only.

The U.S.-Iraq pact, however, is quite different. The “Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during their Temporary Presence in Iraq,” as the tongue-twisting name reveals, reaches much further than a regular SOFA would.  It says U.S. forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and from all of Iraq by the end of 2011. It requires that U.S. combat troops coordinate with the Iraqi government; deliver prisoners to Iraqi custody; and leave to Iraqi authorities the primary responsibility for monitoring Iraq’s airspace.

Bypassing Congress on the agreement has sent the United States into “a legal no-man’s land,” potentially offering a legal precedent for the President to extend future military occupations without Congressional consent, wrote constitutional experts Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway. As Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Jim Webb (D-VA) have noted, Americans have a right to know that their elected representatives get to weigh in on any agreement that demands as much blood and treasure as the Iraq war.

Even some prominent conservatives have expressed concern about the lack of Congressional involvement in the agreement. For example, as the Washington Post’s George Will recently wrote, “This deal … covers questions at the center of far-reaching policy debates that rightly require congressional participation – the timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops central among them.”

In their Senate days, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden all supported legislation requiring that the President consult with Congress on any agreement involving commitment or risk for the nation. The Bush administration turned a deaf ear, but the new tenants in the White House and Foggy Bottom ought to know better than that.