Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

In his latest in a long line of faulty foreign policy articles, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took to the pages of the Washington Post this week to explain what he would do differently, if given the chance, in Iran.

As it turns out, the answer is “not a lot.”

Try as I might, however, I’m not sure my response could hold a candle to Senator Kerry’s remarks, delivered on the Senate floor:

Mr. President, several of us here in the Senate have run for President. Two of us have been our Party’s nominees. Dozens of others have played major roles in tough campaigns. None of us are strangers to the rough and tumble of politics.

[snip]

So it is not as an innocent that I say I was troubled to read an op-ed in this morning’s Washington Post by the likely Republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney – an attack on the Administration’s Iran policy as inaccurate as it was aggressive.

Kerry pointed out that particularly this week, when Prime Minister Netanyahu was in Washington to discuss the issue with President Obama, “we should all remember that the nuclear issue with Iran is deadly serious business that should invite sobriety and serious-minded solutions, not sloganeering and sound bites.”

Kerry made clear that “… Governor Romney’s op-ed does not even do readers the courtesy of describing how a President Romney would do anything different from what the Obama administration has already done,” and argued that, “From his opening paragraphs, Romney garbles history.”

“We’re going to have a bruising election season. And so we should,” said Kerry, “That’s how we decide big issues in the United States. We always have. But let’s have an honest debate, not a contrived one. Governor Romney can debate the man in the White House instead of inventing straw men on the op-ed pages.”

President Obama also criticized the GOP candidates at a press conference the same day:

You know, those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities. They’re not commander in chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war. I’m reminded that the decision that I have to make in terms of sending our young men and women into battle and the impact that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy.

This is not a game. And there’s nothing casual about it. And, you know, when I see some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk, but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we’ve been doing over the last three years, it indicates to me that that’s more about politics than actually trying to solve a difficult problem.

We’ll have more to say about the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) nonproliferation budget soon, but in the meantime, House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Visclosky’s (D-IN) opening statement at the Subcommittee’s March 6 hearing mirrors our own views.

March 6th, 2012

Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Peter Visclosky

As Prepared For Delivery:

“Mr. Administrator, it is good to see you again so soon. Ms. Harrington and Admiral Donald, welcome. We’re all looking forward to your testimony today on these important national security issues. Admiral Donald, this will be your last appearance before the Subcommittee. I wish you all the best in the next chapter in your life and thank you for your service to our nation.

“The threat of nuclear terrorism is one of the gravest national security threats we face today. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that, “The greatest danger of another catastrophic attack in the United States will materialize if the world’s most dangerous terrorists acquire the world’s most dangerous weapons.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under both Presidents Bush and Obama, stated, “Every senior leader, when you’re asked what keeps you awake at night, it’s the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.”

“In April of 2009, the President committed to an aggressive nonproliferation agenda to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide in four years, an objective that I whole-heartedly support. The 2013 request professes to support this commitment by proposing $2.5 billion for the Nonproliferation account, an increase of $163 million over the 2012 enacted level. However, this increase is not to the core program. Rather it is due to the inclusion of $150 million for USEC and an increase to the Fissile Materials Disposition program, neither of which contributes to securing vulnerable materials.

“Mr. Administrator, at your appearance before the Subcommittee last week, I applauded the hard choices NNSA made in its budget request regarding nuclear weapons. However, I cannot do the same today. I have yet to be provided with any compelling reason for including the funding for USEC within Nonproliferation. Further, I must point out that the increase in the account for USEC roughly corresponds to the drastic reduction in the Second Line of Defense program. I cannot fathom an explanation that will be satisfactory for these changes given the importance of this mission, but I am here to listen to your justification.

“Admiral, the 2013 budget request for Naval Reactors funding is flat compared to the 2012 enacted level. This represents a significant change – a decrease of $144 million – to the projected needs outlined in your budget last fiscal year. I understand this reduction is enabled by the Navy’s decision to defer the OHIO Replacement by two years. I look forward to your insights regarding the modified program schedule as well as more details on how this initiative has changed since last year.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the time.”

###

Toward the end of last year we noted that the Air Force appeared to be hedging on the planned scope of the B61 life extension program (also known as the B61 mod 12). Turns out we were right. At the February 29 House Energy and Water Appropriations Sub…

Yesterday the National Iranian American Council sponsored a full page ad in the Washington Post from several former high-ranking military, intelligence and State Department officials that urges President Obama to say no to war with Iran. The backdrop o…