In an extraordinary move, President Obama today presided over a meeting of the U.N. Security Council and turned the U.S. into the world’s number-one anti-nuclear crusader. In an unanimous vote, the Security Council issued a call for global nuclear disarmament. President Obama has acknowledged that this will be a very long term effort, but the fact that this effort is being endorsed by the major nuclear powers means that there will be heightened consensus for both upholding and renewing existing non-proliferation and arms control treaties as well as challenging countries, like Iran and North Korea, who are far outside this new mainstream. What struck me most about this was President Obama’s acknowledgment of the U.S. role in nuclear security, as reported by The New York Times:

Mr. Obama accomplished that goal in part by acknowledging that the United States was part of the nuclear problem and would have to accept limits on its own arsenal — steps Mr. Bush always rejected. Mr. Obama committed to winning Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which President Bill Clinton could not get through the Senate, and acknowledged that the United States had an obligation under the treaty to move toward elimination of its own arsenal. The Bush administration had argued that this was dangerous in the extreme. The test ban treaty appears bound for tremendous resistance in the Senate, where it was narrowly defeated during the Clinton administration.

The full text of President Obama’s remarks can be found here. While it’s clear that the road to nuclear disarmament will see challenges along the way, at least a path has been charted and new and emerging nuclear powers have been put on notice that the tide of history is not turning in their favor. There are real security concerns about the mechanisms and speed of nuclear disarmament that will have to be addressed by every nuclear country, but it’s also clear that a world in which more and more countries (and possibly non-state actors) are nuclear capable will not be a safer world. When it comes to nuclear weapons, less really is more.

If you have an interest in keeping up with the nuclear weapons debate, I recommend the Carnegie Nonproliferation website, as well as the Arms Control Wonk blog.

Photo Credit: The LA Times

The annual gathering of world leaders to mark the start of a new session of the U.N. General Assembly provides the U.S. president with an opportunity to clearly define his vision of the U.S. role in the world. Think of it as a State of the Union address, except it’s to the world rather than just the country. And just as the State of the Union speech allows a president to promote his domestic legislative agenda to the U.S. Congress, so this speech allows a president to promote his international agenda before the world body. The White House blog notes that President Obama, “took the opportunity to reflect upon his first nine months in office, highlighting his administration’s priorities and looking forward to challenges ahead [and he] outlined the ‘Four Pillars’ he believes are ‘fundamental to the future that we want for our children’: ‘non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.’” The full text of his speech can be found here.

President Obama reversed course on missile defense this week, announcing a retreat from the Bush plan of stationing missile interceptors and radar bases in Eastern Europe:

In one of the biggest national security reversals of his young presidency, Mr. Obama canceled former President George W. Bush’s plans to station a radar facility in the Czech Republic and 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland. Instead, he plans to deploy smaller SM-3 interceptors by 2011, first aboard ships and later in Europe, possibly even in Poland or the Czech Republic. Mr. Obama said that the new system “will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies” to meet a changing threat from Iran.

The move is widely seen as a reflection of Obama’s desire to “reset” relations with Russia and to remove a divisive issue between the two on the eve of talks over Iran’s nuclear program, where Russian cooperation will be instrumental in maintaining Western resolve. The decision prompted grumbles from our Eastern European allies as well as providing political ammunition for the opposition party in Congress.

For some analysis of the decision I call your attention to this article by James Lindsay, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations:

The system that President George W. Bush proposed be built in Poland and the Czech Republic was mismatched to the threat it was designed to defeat. It would have deployed interceptor missiles that had yet to be tested under real world conditions to defend against long-range missiles that Iran had yet to develop. Meanwhile, the interceptors would have been useless against the short- and medium-range missiles that Iran is rapidly developing.

If we can accept that the new missile defense system will indeed be faster, cheaper, and better, I think we can conclude, contrary to this analysis in The New York Times, that this new effort will not be a hard sell. Will Russia reciprocate? There are some reasons for optimism, as this report notes, Russia has decided not to deploy missiles in Poland, as it has threatened to do if the U.S. went ahead with the planned deployment. It remains to be seen, however, if there will be reciprocity from Russia in next week’s meetings on Iran at the United Nations.

At the end of the day we are left with the prospect that the U.S. has traded missiles in Eastern Europe that did not yet exist for Russian assistance in deterring Iranian nuclear missiles that also do not yet exist. If Russia fails to step-up and use their considerable trade links to persuade Iran to negotiate on their nuclear program, or at least not veto sanctions,  then we will have traded nothing for nothing. Some may interpret that to mean that we’ve lost nothing, but somehow I doubt that our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic will see it that way.

Admiral Mike Mullen said yesterday that he anticipates more troops will be needed in Afghanistan:

Admiral Mullen, called before the Senate Armed Services Committee to testify for his nomination to serve a second term as chairman, said that no specific request for more troops had yet been received from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan. “But I do believe that — having heard his views and having great confidence in his leadership — a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, and, without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance,” Admiral Mullen said. Admiral Mullen’s comments were his most specific to date in a public setting on whether more troops would have to be sent to Afghanistan.

In What’s Really Happening in Afghanistan: A Report from the Front, Gilles Dorronsoro and Karen DeYoung, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,  examine the realities and challenges on the ground in Afghanistan and propose three solutions to the conflict.

On this anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks I’d like to call your attention to the website of the History Channel where they showcase their programming dedicated to remembering 9/11. They feature an interactive map representing eyewitness accounts, a timeline of the events of that day, and an archive of radio broadcasts. They also highlight events in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Shanksville, PA.

I was hesitant to make a post about 9/11. The U.S. Role blog is usually about what the U.S. is doing in the world and 9/11 is about what was done to the U.S. on that day. There are those who believe that 9/11 was caused by what the U.S. had done in the world, that the terrorists were motivated by past grievances, but no grievances over real or imagined injustices can possibly justify the cold blooded murder of civilians. And besides, blaming the victim is just bad form. The 9/11 attacks did expand the U.S. role in the world, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq still ongoing, and it inspired closer U.S. security collaboration with our allies. The impact of 9/11 on the U.S. role in the world is probably more expansive than we realize and more complex than I can outline here, so for right now, I’m content to solemnly remember the lives lost on that day and honor those who remain vigilant in our common defense.

Iran has reportedly replied to Security Council requests with a new package of proposals designed to avoid a new round of sanctions over its nuclear program even as the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that the U.N. has reached a stalemate with Iran and in the absence of a breakthrough it’s likely that more sanctions on Iran will soon be considered.

Would you like to know what kind of assessment a bipartisan think tank offers on the U.S. response to the Iranian nuclear program? This report in The Wall Street Journal highlights a recent assessment by the Bipartisan Policy Center. The Center is a non-profit organization that was established in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell to develop and promote bipartisan solutions. The assessment notes the failure of the recent diplomatic efforts and economic incentives designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program and encourages harsher sanctions to demonstrate to Iran the severity of the situation. The Center’s assessment also bluntly advises President Obama to begin planning for the military option as a clear warning and inducement to Iran to take the diplomatic track seriously:

It is critical that Mr. Obama use the upcoming special session of the U.N. Security Council and the G-20 summit to marshal support for a robust strategy aimed at preventing both Iranian nuclear-weapons capability and an Israeli strike. This new strategy needs to begin with the imposition of expanded and more effective sanctions on Iran’s banking and energy sectors, as well as on companies that do business with them. [...] Given Iran’s shortening nuclear timetable and diplomatic challenges for forging an international consensus on sanctions, we urge Mr. Obama simultaneously to begin preparations for the use of military options. Now is the time for the president to reinforce his commitment to “use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon,” as he stated in February. We believe only a credible U.S. military threat can make possible a peaceful solution.

The full report on U.S. options can be found on the website of the Bipartisan Policy Center.

As I try to wrap things up before departing on my holiday weekend I wanted to note one of the more interesting things that caught my eye in a week dominated by news of California wildfires and celebrity burials. As the U.S. military continues a top-level assessment of the war in Afghanistan the public debate has taken a surprising turn. I’m referring to George Will’s op-ed in The Washington Post in which he sounds a retreat from Afghanistan. As you know, Will is a noted conservative columnist and one could reasonably assume that he would be in favor of continuing the war in Afghanistan and for increasing U.S. troop levels there. Surprisingly, he is calling for withdrawing troops and using drones and other stand-off weapons to accomplish U.S. military goals. In this report in Time Magazine Mark Thompson examines that idea to see if the U.S. really could do it all from a distance. This policy brief from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace stops short of calling for a troop withdrawal and instead argues for a dramatic redefinition of the mission in Afghanistan, away from defeating the Taliban and toward securing urban centers and key roads so that the Afghan government can survive the eventual U.S. and NATO withdrawal. So, what do you think, send in the drones or keep boots on the ground?

Photo Credit: Danger Room

Oberlin College will screen a film series next week examining the relationship between the U.S. and Iran. From the press release:

“Iran and the West” is the title of the three-part film series by producer Norma Percy ‘63 and her colleagues at Brook Lapping that explores how all previous attempts to open a dialogue between leaders of Iran and the West ended up as a dialogue of the deaf. The series examines relations between the two countries beginning in 1978.Film one: The Man Who Changed the World (1978-81), features former President Jimmy Carter, who, with others, tells the story of the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran for more than 400 days. Film two: The Pariah State (1982-2002), features exclusive storytelling interviews with two giants of Iranian history since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. Film three: Nuclear Confrontation (2001 to present), picks up the relationship under President Barack Obama and shows how closely the two countries have cooperated in the past despite disagreements over nuclear development. All screenings are free and take place in the Science Center, West Lecture Hall. A question-and-answer session will take place after the final movie.

If any of you are in Ohio and have a chance to watch this film series (or any part of it) your comments would be most welcome.