Ratification of the New START treaty received a huge boost today as it received two-thirds support of the voting Senate on the motion to proceed to debate. While only 51 votes were needed to begin debate, this vote demonstrates that Republicans are divided on the treaty and that it has enough support to achieve ratification. The super majority vote also serves as a significant blow to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who was forced to back down from making the Senate clerk read the text of treaty.

Nine Republicans voted to support the motion to proceed — including Sens. John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), George Voinovich (OH), Richard Lugar (IN), Scott Brown (MA), and Bob Bennett (R-UT). The final vote was 66 to 32. While this was short of the magic number of 67, two senators did not vote, including Democratic Senator Evan Bayh who is expected to support the treaty. In other words, this vote indicates that treaty will likely have the 67 votes needed for ratification.

Moreover, this was a procedural vote, not a vote on the final treaty. Republicans have often voted to filibuster legislation that they claim to support. For instance, Brown, Snowe, Lugar, and Murkowski all voted to filibuster Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for procedural reasons even though all claimed to support its repeal.

On START, Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) both voted for the treaty in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but voted no on the procedural vote. Furthermore, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has spoken previously about how he supports the treaty. So if anything, support for the treaty is likely to increase not decrease when it comes for a full vote. One would also expect this to be the case when senators can no longer hide behind a procedural justification (such as wanting to vote next year) to vote no and are forced once and for all to vote for a treaty supported by the U.S. military, every living Republican Secretary of State, the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, the nuclear lab directors, and all of our allies.

Today’s vote is also a big blow to Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who just yesterday questioned whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had the votes and threatened to work to make sure START failed. As Jeffrey Lewis of Arms Control Wonk noted, “This is the worst outcome for Kyl: irrelevance.”

Cross-posted at ThinkProgress.

Ratification of the New START treaty received a huge boost today as it received two-thirds support of the voting Senate on the motion to proceed to debate. While only 51 votes were needed to begin debate, this vote demonstrates that Republicans are divided on the treaty and that it has enough support to achieve ratification. The super majority vote also serves as a significant blow to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who was forced to back down from making the Senate clerk read the text of treaty.

Nine Republicans voted to support the motion to proceed — including Sens. John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), George Voinovich (OH), Richard Lugar (IN), Scott Brown (MA), and Bob Bennett (R-UT). The final vote was 66 to 32. While this was short of the magic number of 67, two senators did not vote, including Democratic Senator Evan Bayh who is expected to support the treaty. In other words, this vote indicates that treaty will likely have the 67 votes needed for ratification.

Moreover, this was a procedural vote, not a vote on the final treaty. Republicans have often voted to filibuster legislation that they claim to support. For instance, Brown, Snowe, Lugar, and Murkowski all voted to filibuster Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for procedural reasons even though all claimed to support its repeal.

On START, Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) both voted for the treaty in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but voted no on the procedural vote. Furthermore, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has spoken previously about how he supports the treaty. So if anything, support for the treaty is likely to increase not decrease when it comes for a full vote. One would also expect this to be the case when senators can no longer hide behind a procedural justification (such as wanting to vote next year) to vote no and are forced once and for all to vote for a treaty supported by the U.S. military, every living Republican Secretary of State, the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, the nuclear lab directors, and all of our allies.

Today’s vote is also a big blow to Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who just yesterday questioned whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had the votes and threatened to work to make sure START failed. As Jeffrey Lewis of Arms Control Wonk noted, “This is the worst outcome for Kyl: irrelevance.”

Daniel Brumberg of the U.S. Institute of Peace and Barry Blechman of the Stimson Center have a good piece in Foreign Policy discussing some of the conclusions of the recent USIP/Stimson report on Iran.

Knocking down spurious claims that Iran is just a U.S. air strike away from a pro-American democratic revolution, the authors write that the best thing that the U.S. can do promote political reform in Iran “is to make détente with the Islamic Republic a top priority“:

Sustained U.S.-Iranian engagement would undercut the “threat” that ultra hardliners regularly invoke to legitimate their efforts to pummel or isolate their critics. The latter include prominent conservatives, many of whom are eager to deflect the efforts of Revolutionary Guard to undermine the autonomy of clerical institutions, private sector businesses, and the parliament. Fighting for their very political and economic survival, these conservative leaders are likely to push for a process of internal political accommodation that could open up some doors for reformists. While they face many hurdles, one thing is sure: an escalation of U.S.-Iranian tensions (much less a war!) will only harm the efforts of those Iranian leaders who favor internal dialogue to make their voices heard.

In the coming decade, Iran’s politics will be defined by a slow, agonizing struggle waged through rather than against the institutions of the Islamic Republic. If we indulge in the seductive dream of a sudden democratic revolution — whether delivered by bombs from above or by popular resistance from below — we will destroy the seeds of a political change in Iran. But if we we push for a process of engagement that moves Iran and the U.S. from conflict to diplomatic coexistence, we can help nurture Iran’s own capacity to change and transform from within.

While I’m a bit skeptical about the claim that the struggle will be “waged through rather than against the institutions of the Islamic Republic” — as I read things, it will probably be a bit of both — in terms of the effects that U.S. threats have on Iran’s democracy movement, this tracks pretty closely with what Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji told me earlier this year. Ganji said that fear of a U.S. attack causes Iranian democracy activists to scale back their rhetoric:

“Since Iranians, in particular opposition groups, do not want to see a repeat of Afghanistan or Iraq in Iran,” Ganji said, “they’ve actually had to scale back their opposition to the government in order not to encourage an invasion [by the U.S.]”

Ganji was adamant that talk of a U.S. military option was harmful to the cause of Iranian democracy. “If you do not have the threat of foreign invasion and you do not use the dialog of invasion and military intervention, the society itself has a huge potential to oppose and potentially topple the theocratic system,” Ganji said. “What I’m trying to get to is that jingoistic, militaristic language used by any foreign power would actually be detrimental to this natural evolution of Iranian society.”

In a November op-ed, CFR’s Ray Takeyh suggested that history offers a model to work with:

The Helsinki Accord of 1975 invigorated the moribund opposition groups behind the Iron Curtain and ensured a smooth transition to a post-communist reality. More so than arms races and arms control treaties, those accords defied the skeptics and cynics by contributing to the collapse of the mighty Soviet empire. An emphasis on human rights today can not only buttress the viability of the Green Movement but also socialize an important segment of the security services, clerical estate and intelligentsia to the norms to which a state must adhere in order to become a member of global society. The successor generation of Iranian leaders would then be more sensitive to their obligations to citizens and the international community. By linking its diplomacy to human rights behavior, the United States could mitigate Iran’s nuclear ambitions and pave the way for a peaceful transition from clerical autocracy to a more responsible and humane government.

For any of this to possibly work, of course, we have to rid ourselves of the illusion that we can just bomb our way out of the problem.

Back in January, President of Our Savior Lutheran Church and prominent Texas Republican Norman Adams launched Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy, a coalition which claims to offer “a ‘sensible’ solution to our immigration problem.” Adams’ plan — which would issue most undocumented immigrants a worker permit — isn’t exactly being met with open arms by members of his own party.

That’s why Steven Hotze, whom Right Wing Watch describes as an “ultra-right-wing Texas activist,” came to Adams’ defense earlier this week. “I am taking my stand with Norman Adams,” declared Hotze on the Texas GOP Vote blog. However, while Adams believes a sensible immigration policy is necessary because the “combined fertility rate of American born citizens is barely 2%, considered unsustainable” and due to the fact that Americans “have aborted nearly fifty million children in the United States!,” Hotze has a slightly different take. According to him, Latinos are natural Republican allies against Democrats and Muslims:

The majority of the Hispanic culture in America is Christian, pro-family, pro-life and pro-free enterprise. Sounds like they would make great Republicans to me. Let’s go recruit them!

Gentlemen, it seems that the real problem we face is the Muslim immigration invasion of America. The Hispanics are our natural allies against the Democrats and Muslims.

Ironically, Hotze also noted, “It seems to me that there may be nativistic and prejudicial thinking on the immigration issue by many Caucasians.” When it comes to Latinos though, that thinking is unfounded says Hotze. “I like people who take risks to help their families and are willing to work to better their families’ lives.” Yet, apparently, that criteria doesn’t apply to Muslim immigrants.

Besides the fact that Hotze’s reasoning is downright twisted, the “natural alliance” might not play out as he expects. As far as the politics of Latin America itself go, the recent recognition of Palestine by three South American governments certainly counters the notion that Latinos abroad necessarily perceive Islam as a threat. Meanwhile, it would make more sense for Latinos in the U.S. to stand in solidarity with the Muslim community against the racist vitriol and anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from the Republican party rather than allowing themselves to be used as a political wedge.

(H/T Latina Lista)

Finally, after months of playing hard to get Kyl shows his true colors – he is the far right partisan extremist everyone thought he was. Yesterday Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he would work “very hard” to make sure the New START “treaty fails.” With this move Kyl has shown that he absolutely cannot be trusted on the START treaty.

It is now obvious that all of the negotiations over nuclear weapons funding over the past year were just part of a stalling strategy. Senator Kyl never intended to support the treaty in this session. This was pretty apparent early on, as I noted back in February, May, June, July, August, September at every step of the way Kyl has urged delay.

Now Kyl and some other Republicans are jumping up and down saying lets just vote in January! This is not credible. And Harry Reid and the White House should not trust anything Kyl says or promises. The idea that there will be a vote in January or February is a myth. Only the most naive in the ways of Washington would believe differently. Let’s be clear: delaying a vote likely means the death of the treaty.

First of all, the treaty ratification process will have to start all over. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee could technically vote the treaty out of committee again immediately, but with a change in members on both sides of the aisle, new hearings will be insisted upon by the new minority members. New Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), among others, have in fact already demanded this. Therefore, these new round of hearings will take time. So we are likely looking at a delay in the committee vote until about April.

If the treaty is voted out of committee, it will then need Senate floor time and will need the votes of 15 Republicans instead of 9. And to make the ratification math even harder, some of these new Republicans are replacing more moderate Republicans, such as Bob Bennett (R-UT) and George Voinovich (R-OH). The treaty will therefore be firmly in the hands of the Senate Republican leadership.

There is no reason to believe that Kyl will be in any rush to ratify the treaty in the new year. In fact, one can already predict the new excuses for delay. First, it will be needing to wait for the new President’s budget, then it will be because we need to guarantee that the congress approves the new spending in the FY12 budget, then some low level Russian official will say something about not liking missile defense and Kyl will say “see we can’t do the treaty” or “we need more time.”

On top of all this, the 2012 election starts in full swing next year. With Republican candidates tripping over themselves to move to the right (Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin have already come out in opposition to the treaty), the chances that the Republican leadership in the Senate would provide President Obama a “victory,” however slight a victory, becomes increasingly less likely.

So while it might not be now or never for the START treaty, it will certainly be perceived that way in Moscow and other capitals around the world. And the implications of its failure, or perceived failure will be very serious.