The Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC) is back with another report on New START.  Recall that the last time the Committee released a report on arms control (in September 2009), it cited the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States 25 times to raise doubts about the New START negotiations, yet omitted the single most important statement the Commission made re: the impending expiration of START I:

“The moment appears ripe for a renewal of arms control with Russia, and this bodes well for a continued reduction in the nuclear arsenal. The United States and Russia should pursue a step-by-step approach and take a modest first step to ensure that there is a successor to START I when it expires at the end of 2009.  Beyond a modest incremental reduction in operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons, the arms control process becomes much more complex as new factors are introduced.” [emphasis mine.]

The main thrust of the new report seems to be that the Senate should evaluate the new agreement carefully and thoroughly.  The RPC would be hard pressed to find supporters of the treaty who actually disagree with this position.

In general, the new report seems to lack the same vehemence that characterized the last one.  For example, the best the Committee could come up with on verification is that before the treaty annexes were complete, “the Administration was already proclaiming that New START has an “effective verification regime.”  And on the tactical nuclear weapons, the report states: “In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the Treaty of Moscow in 2002, Chairman Biden lamented that it did not address tactical nuclear weapons.  Of course, Sen. Biden voted for SORT, as did 94 other Senators.

Perhaps I’m being overly optimistic, but I think this bodes well for the treaty’s prospects, even if a tough fight on conditions, understandings, and declarations on the treaty is on the horizon.  All (or nearly all) the information the Committee asks for will be (or already has been) provided and all the questions it raises on specific issues have answers that have been provided and will continue to be provided by the Obama administration and the many moderates and conservatives who have already come out in support of the treaty.  

This week saw more confident language surrounding ongoing UN sanctions talks:

“I am very confident that unless Iran does something significant that demonstrates that it is taking confidence building measures, I am very confident we will get a Security Council resolution that is supported by the majority of the UN Security Council.”

In his comments this past Tuesday, White House WMD czar Gary Samore confirmed his belief that both Russia and China are likely to support an eventual resolution.

Unfortunately, Samore is not so confident about the zombie fuel swap, noting that that current Brazilian and Turkish efforts are unlikely to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough and, as such, the US is holding out little hope for the deal.

“The Iranians have frankly not been prepared to accept that offer, it’s pretty clear to anybody,” Samore said, “and Turkey will soon satisfy themselves of that.”

He also added that Iran’s “nuclear clock is not moving as quickly as some feared, because of problems the Iranians have had in terms of their centrifuges,” but declined to say whether the centrifuge problems were a result of alleged Western attempts to thwart work by the machines.

Meanwhile, Congress is hard at work making the case against exemptions for cooperating countries from corporate sanctions, such as those requested by the administration…

On Wednesday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, led by Chairman Joe Lieberman, heard testimony from GAO that, despite existing US sanctions, seven firms involved in the Iranian oil, gas and petrochemical sectors received $880 million in US government contracts over the past four years.  

CQ Today reports that:

Although the GAO report, dated May 4, did not attempt to determine whether the seven firms violated the existing U.S. sanctions enacted in 1996, senators were quick to interpret the findings from Congress’ independent investigative arm as further evidence that successive administrations have failed to enforce the restrictions.

Lieberman made clear after the hearing that “a lot of the ‘should’s’” in the 1996 bill language will need to “become ‘shall’s’” this time around.

To that end, Lieberman announced that he would put together a letter to both Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates detailing the panel’s concerns, including the GAO’s latest findings.

Though it may look like the administration has dropped a pretty significant ball here by not pressing harder for exceptions, especially when those same exceptions could potentially make or break the aforementioned, very confident, support needed for UN sanctions, it seems that the administration may be busy waging its own private, very sanction-ish, campaign on the sidelines.  

Since March, a significant number of foreign companies have announced plans to cut, suspend, or rein in ties with Iran, including oil majors Eni, LUKOIL and Royal Dutch Shell, Indian refiner Reliance Industries, US construction and mining equipment maker Caterpillar, and luxury German carmarker Daimler.  KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Ernst & Young have also declared themselves free of any business ties to Iran.

Reuters reports that all this may be the handiwork of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who has been traveling to foreign capitals to talk to governments, financial regulators, banks and business leaders for months:

“We view the business community as an ally and we talk to them in that sense. We have information regarding Iranian illicit conduct that they might not have, and we provide them with the advantage of our viewpoint so they can better assess their own risks.”

Levey notes that his goal not to squash Iran’s economy completely, and he would prefer to minimize the impact of these cuts on Iran’s citizens, but “It’s hard to get it surgically precise.”

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has an Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on New START.  The last paragraph is the key paragraph:

 My takeaways:

1. Given that DoD plans to deploy up to 240 SLBMs and keep 14 boomers (probably 12 deployed with 20 SLBMs each and 2 in overhaul), we’re really going to be putting Section IV of Part III of the Protocol and the Ninth Agreed Statement to work.  Amy Woolf runs the numbers here.

2. The Senate ICBM coalition fared pretty well. It looks like one squadron of 50 Minuteman III ICBM’s will now become non-deployed, but DoD will retain all 450 silos.  Recall that non-deployed ICBMs are not limited by the treaty, so the U.S. will not have to destroy the extra missiles.  There also appears to be a built-in ceiling of 20 ICBMs for a prompt global strike capability, in the event that DoD decides to deploy it.Update 5/13: Upon closer inspection it looks like the 420 number for deployed ICBMs probably has nothing to do with Prompt Global Strike. Jeffrey asks some questions here . I think the key point, as he notes, is that the administration has seven years to figure out how to get down to 700 deployed delivery vehicles, and they may not be quite sure how they’re going to do that yet.

3. I was glad to see Gates say that the treaty “limits significantly U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals” instead of something like“the limit is 30 percent lower than the limit in SORT.” The former formulation is more accurate.

By Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Laicie Olson

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. – President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Invoking the memory of President Eisenhower’s farewell address last weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates delivered a fiery speech aimed at overhauling the Pentagon’s budget and restructuring its bureaucracy.

This rhetoric is anything but new, and builds on previous initiatives set out by the Secretary.  

Just last Monday at a Navy League conference, Gates urged the Navy and Marine Corps to think more deeply about the challenges facing their costliest platforms – including aircraft carriers that run $11 billion each, future ballistic missile submarines costing $7 billion apiece and a Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle “suited only to Eisenhower’s D-Day planning.”

While he later joked that he is “not crazy” and wouldn’t just cut out a carrier, the speech ruffled more than a few feathers.

It also pointed to just a few of the many extreme cases in which U.S. defense outweighs that of other countries (h/t to Chris Hellman):

The U.S. operates 11 large carriers, all nuclear powered.  In terms of size and striking power, no other country has even one comparable ship.

The U.S. Navy has 10 large-deck amphibious ships that can operate as sea bases for helicopters and vertical-takeoff jets. No other navy has more than three, and all of those navies belong to our allies or friends.  Our Navy can carry twice as many aircraft at sea as all the rest of the world combined.

All told, the displacement of the U.S. battle fleet – a proxy for overall fleet capabilities – exceeds, by one recent estimate, at least the next 13 navies combined, of which 11 are our allies or partners.

“It is not a great mystery what needs to change,” Gates said. “What it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices — choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon and out.”

Gates is seeking $10 to $15 billion in savings from the $547-billion Pentagon base budget, a number that has risen to astronomical heights:

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, opened a gusher of defense spending that nearly doubled the base budget over the last decade… Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.

This cut will not, however – as one might expect – contribute to an overall lowering of the Pentagon’s budget.  Instead, resources will be redirected, as they usually are, to fund more essential and more relevant capabilities – “tail to tooth,” as they say.

Unfortunately, Congress is unlikely to be helpful. It sees the Defense budget as a jobs bill; continually appropriating funds for such programs as yet more unneeded C-17 aircraft and an unwanted second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. It also loads the budget with billions to reward contributors and fund pet projects.  

In future Pentagon budgets, Gates hopes to cut overhead costs and transfer the savings to force structure and modernization within the programmed budget.

“What I’m asking for is not a simple budget cut; I’m talking about changing the way we do business. It’s taking the savings from that and applying it to long-term investments,” he said. “This is a lot harder than cutting the budget for one year.”

This may not be the revolution some had hoped for, but it may be a start.

Gates did not attack the Pentagon’s misguided procurement requests or call for a freeze on defense spending, but he did call for setting real priorities, and he even specified a few.

Lamenting that the gap between him and an action officer may be as high as 30 layers, Gates noted that “A request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan – or for any other unit – has to go through no fewer than five four-star headquarters in order to be processed, validated, and eventually dealt with.”

Therefore, as the Defense Department begins the process of preparing next’s years Fiscal Year 2012 budget request, I am directing the military services, the joint staff, the major functional and regional commands, and the civilian side of the Pentagon to take a hard, unsparing look at how they operate – in substance and style alike.

According to rumors, Gates may be building a second portfolio of cuts similar in scope to those he made on April 6, 2009.

“When it came to defense matters, under Eisenhower, real choices were made, priorities set and limits enforced.”  If Gates meant what he said on Saturday, the cuts will be substantial.

While everyone may still be talking about Gates’ recent speeches at the Navy League Sea-Air-Space Exposition and Eisenhower Library (analysis to come), Gates delivered another speech this past week you may be interested in (h/t to Small Wars Journal).

The speech addressed students at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and focused on an issue I’m sure we are all very familiar with:

Good afternoon.  Thank you, Kevin, for the introduction.  I can tell you it is good to be out of D.C. and back in my home state – at least for a short visit.

However, I realize that it is Friday, and after lunch, so I will be content with thanking you for staying awake, or trying to anyway.

Of course, falling asleep in a leadership class or here is one thing.  Falling asleep in a small meeting with the president of the United States is quite another.  But it happens.  I was in one cabinet meeting with President Reagan where the president and six members of the cabinet all fell asleep.

In fact, the first President Bush created an award to honor the American official who most ostentatiously fell asleep in a meeting with the president.  This was not frivolous.  He evaluated candidates on three criteria – first, duration – how long did they sleep?  Second, the depth of the sleep; snoring always got you extra points.  And third, the quality of recovery – did one just quietly open one’s eyes and return to the meeting, or did you jolt awake – and maybe spill something hot in the process?  Well, you will appreciate that the award was named for Air Force Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft, who was the national security adviser at the time.  He was, as you might suspect, the first awardee, and, I might add, won many oak leaf clusters.

Click here for the full transcript.