A powerful member of the House Armed Services Committee spread false accusations against President Obama’s nuclear weapons reduction policy, claiming on a conservative radio show yesterday that no other countries in the world would join the United States in reducing their nuclear arsenal.

Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) made the allegation while appearing on Secure Freedom Radio hosted by Frank Gaffney, one of the nation’s leading Islamophobes profiled in the Center for American Progress report Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.

Gaffney asked Turner if the real reason President Obama wanted to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world is because “this is a radical ideologue at work?” Turner agreed, going on to declare that during Obama’s tenure, the United States would be the “only country” that would reduce its nuclear arsenal. He concluded by dissembling about the New START treaty, an agreement between the U.S. and Russia to reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons, by claiming that Russia would “not [be] required to lower their number at all”:

GAFFNEY: We have a president who is genuinely a radical ideologue when it comes to these things. [...] Is it not a better explanation that in fact it is the same thing we see so dramatically at work with the idea that we might reduce our nuclear arsenal to the level of Pakistan’s that really this is a radical ideologue at work?

TURNER: Right. And this is not about the budget. We’re not going to see significant savings from this. [...] It’s interesting, the president in Prague made a speech that was supposed to be a cornerstone of his presidency, where he called for a world without nuclear weapons and the road to zero. In his presidency, he will only have achieved eliminating our nuclear weapons. If you put a scoreboard on the wall, and you put the countries that have nuclear weapons or are pursuing nuclear weapons, and you start with the Obama presidency and the numbers of inventory they had, and then you get to his reelection campaign and put the numbers they have at the end, the only country on that board that’s going to have a lower number is the United States. In START, Russia was not required to lower their number at all.

Listen to it:

During the New START ratification debate back in 2010, Republicans regularly tried to float this false claim that the treaty wouldn’t force Russia to reduce its nuclear weapons. As the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation wrote, “The treaty enhances U.S. security by verifiably reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles.” And the State Department fact sheet on the treaty notes that the limit for deployed warheads for both countries “is 74 percent lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30 percent lower than the upper deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.”

One expert called claims that Russia won’t have to limit its nukes “ridiculous.” “That’s the whole purpose of the treaty, to reduce the number of warheads,” said Robert Norris of the National Resources Defense Council.

The Obama administration is now reportedly considering reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal further and Republicans, like Turner, are doing anything they can to prevent it, even if it includes making claims about America’s treaty obligations and nuclear security that have no basis in reality. But as CAP’s Lawrence Korb and Alex Rothman noted this week, “the Pentagon’s own strategic thinkers have noted that the strategic landscape has changed and that the U.S.’s Cold War-sized arsenal may exceed the country’s current needs.”

Yesterday, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. intelligence suggests Iran has not yet decided whether to pursue a nuclear weapon. At the time, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) disagreed with the DNI and, citing no evidence, declared he was “very convinced” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom made similar assertions while responding to a question about the DNI’s assessment that Iran is not yet constructing a nuclear weapon, saying:

SHALOM: Everyone now knows most of the world, if not all the world, knows the Iranians are trying to develop a nuclear bomb. It’s out of the question. They have all the proof. Everyone knows the security and intelligence [services] of the western world knows very well the Iranians are developing a nuclear bomb, and they should be stopped.

Watch it:

But Shalom’s comments, which directly contradict Clapper’s testimony yesterday, also fail to match up with Israeli intelligence assessments on Iran’s nuclear program. Last month, Haaretz’s Amos Harel reported that, “Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb, according to the intelligence assessment Israeli officials will present later this week to Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

That assessment would fit with U.S. intelligence estimates and the IAEA’s most recent report which, while expressing concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program, didn’t conclude that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

While Senate hawks are pushing a resolution that some have interpreted as “creeping toward an authorization of military force against Iran,” lawmakers in the House are starting a campaign to promote a diplomatic solution to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons. Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Walter Jones (R-NC) are asking House members to sign on to a letter urging Presidnet Obama not to start a war with Iran.

In an impassioned speech on the House floor yesterday, Ellison quoted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan, and retired General Anthony Zinni all warning of the consequences of attacking Iran. “It would be unwise for the United States to enter into a new war just as we’re ending two others,” he said:

If you listen to the rhetoric around Washington and the Nation, Mr. Speaker, it is literally impossible to not hear the drumbeat of war with Iran. The rhetoric in Washington about the military strike against Iran leads me to think that we may be sliding into a new war yet. … [W]henever you speak against a war, your patriotism is challenged and your courage is challenged until they find out that you were right. [...]

But the heated rhetoric we hear around our city and the events on the world stage are deeply troubling, Mr. Speaker. News headlines read, “The Coming Attack on Iran.” Pundits discuss the possibility with shocking casualness, and I am alarmed by this.

America, we have seen this movie before, and, Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t end well. Two months after leaving Iraq, we have already forgotten the consequences of war it appears. If you need a reminder, talk to a veteran or a veteran’s widow.

Watch the speech:

As Ellison noted in his speech, Iran with nuclear weapons threatens regional security and international nonproliferation norms. But the Minnesota congressman is right. The drumbeat for war with Iran is getting louder and longer, particularly on Capitol Hill and out on the GOP presidential campaign trail.

But, just like the prelude to war in Iraq, it’s also made its way into the mainstream media. “Haven’t we seen this movie before?” the Huffington Post’s Michael Calderone asks in a story today. “It sure feels like 2002 for anyone who was around then and is now scanning newspaper headlines or watching TV talking-heads discuss a possible Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities — an act which could pull the U.S. into another thorny Middle East military conflict.”

While the IAEA has expressed serious concern about military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during Senate testimony yesterday repeated his position that Iran has not yet decided whether to develop a nuclear weapon. (HT: Lara Friedman)