Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Not Reset--Rented

Behold the most ridiculous argument I've heard so far to ratify the START treaty:

If the U.S. doesn't ratify New START, experts say it will prove to Russia that the U.S. can't deliver on its end of that "reset." Failing to ratify New START could mean a diminished incentive for Russia to formulate its Iran policy based on U.S. objectives, especially because Russia has both economic and geopolitical incentives for maintaining a positive relationship with Iran.

So, how "reset" are our relations if Russia will only help us on Iran by getting START?

And doesn't that Russian help imply that by "giving" us help with isolating Iran a bit more that Russia "received" an advantageous nuclear treaty from us? If the treaty is so good for us, as proponents here say, why would Russia have to give us something on Iran to get it? Are our negotiators really that good?

And one last thing, even the article says that Russia has no interest in helping Iran go nuclear. I for one have no interest in adopting a poor nuclear treaty with Russia in order to marginally hamper Iran's already crappy military. Because have no doubt that whatever Russia does not provide Iran, China will step in to get Iran versions of the same weapon.

Kill START and start over. Some type of treaty would be nice. This one is not that type of treaty.