In his State of the Union address last night, President Barack Obama referred to the need to reduce the force structure of our strategic military systems by cutting the number of deployed nuclear weapons. Press reports over the last year have indicated that military and civilian leaders have settled on a plan to reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons by one-third, to between 1,000 and 1,100, down from 1,700. President Obama should push for such a reduction, which would follow the practice of his predecessors and improve our national security. As the Center for American Progress has argued for the last decade, this move makes sense both strategically and fiscally, and is long overdue.

When President George W. Bush entered the White House in 2001, he moved to cut our stockpile of nuclear weapons—which at that time numbered about 6,000 to the lowest-possible number consistent with our national security. The president offered to make these cuts unilaterally, but Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted the reductions codified in a treaty that would limit deployed nuclear weapons to less than 1,500 warheads for each country. In 2002, under pressure from Russia, President Bush agreed to a legally binding accord the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or SORT—which stated that both sides will limit their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons each.

Subsequently, in 2010 President Obama negotiated a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, with Russia that calls for reducing each country’s number of deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 by 2018, but places no limits on the total number of warheads, which now number 5,000. This was an impressive and welcome achievement. But analyses by the Air War College, Gen. James Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and commander of U.S. Strategic Command; and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) all argue that these numbers of deployed and reserve nuclear weapons and warheads are far more than the United States needs for the purpose of deterrence in the 21st century.

Analysts at the Air War College argue that the United States can achieve deterrence with a total nuclear force (deployed and reserve) of 300 weapons, while Gen. Cartwright believes a total of 800 (400 deployed and 400 in reserve) would be sufficient.

These reductions would result in substantial savings. The United States currently spends about $55 billion a year to maintain its triad of nuclear-capable bombers, land-based ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Moreover, if the United States wants to refurbish, repair, and modernize its existing nuclear arsenal in its current size, we will have to spend about $600 billion over the next decade. Adapting the Cartwright plan would save approximately $120 billion. Depending on the specifics of its implementation, even President Obama’s more moderate target could save tens of billions over the next decade. Additionally, reducing our nuclear footprint will reduce long-term maintenance costs and reduce the risks of theft or mishandling of nuclear material.

Given the pressure that all government expenditures will face over the next decade due to our fiscal problems, maintaining our current oversized nuclear arsenal is unnecessary, unaffordable, and unwise. The savings from reducing our nuclear arsenal can be used for either more pressing national security priorities or to pay down the national debt. This is why the Center for American Progress has advocated for reductions to our nuclear spending for nearly a decade and why we fully support President Obama’s planned reductions.

Lawrence Korb is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

News that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — also known as North Korea — has tested its third nuclear weapon has given Republicans a new angle to trot out old attacks on the Obama administration’s security priorities.

The attacks come from a multitude of directions, but all share the common thread of being firmly opposed to some part of the Obama administration agenda:

“North Korea just responded to POTUS principle of ‘national security by kumbaya.’”

The Weekly Standard and former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) chose to focus on the U.S. response to the test, highlighting their disdain for international cooperation and what they unfairly deem Obama’s weakness in the face of international challenges:

North Korea just responded to POTUS principle of “national security by kumbaya.”

— Allen West (@AllenWest) February 12, 2013

Such right-wing attacks on Obama fail to include what they propose as a proper policy towards North Korea. Scoffing at the U.N. Security Council is easy, as proved by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), but cooperation from China — a key member of the Council — will be necessary for any solution on the Korean peninsula. The North Korean government has likewise proved unresponsive to the combination of carrots and sticks by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations alike.

“U.S. security cannot…afford even more cuts to U.S. defense capabilities”

Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Buck McKeon used the North Korean test as an opportunity to reissue his fears about the pending cuts to the military budget, saying in a statement, “U.S. security cannot, in the face of the president’s sequester and $500 billion in reductions to the DoD budget so far, afford even more cuts to U.S. defense capabilities, such as our nuclear deterrent.”

Nuclear deterrent is based around the idea that other countries know that any attack on the United States would be met with a nuclear counter-strike. Sequestration’s cuts to the military budget — while clearly better if targeted rather across the board — would still leave the U.S. with the largest military budget in the world, as well as the largest nuclear stockpile.

“Will POTUS propose US nuclear weapon cuts the day after North Korea conducts another nuke test?”

President Obama is expected to use tonight’s State of the Union address to restart discussion of reducing the U.S. nuclear stockpile in his second term. With that in mind, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip and a long-time opponent of nuclear disarmament, took to Twitter:

Will POTUS propose US nuclear weapon cuts the day after North Korea conducts another nuke test? fb.me/XYXZTDOX

— JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) February 12, 2013

The United States in 2010 possessed approximately 5,113 nuclear warheads, with only Russia close to matching that number. In contrast, North Korea currently possesses enough plutonium for between two to four more bombs at the most and is under sanction preventing import of new nuclear material. While today’s test shows some improvement over previous tests’ yields, it is unlikely that Korean nuclear technology has been miniaturized enough to fit atop a ballistic missile. Any cuts to the nuclear weapons in the U.S. would do little to upset so large an imbalance.

Former Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright today said that military strikes on Iran would not completely end its nuclear program.

Appearing at a conference of the Center for Strategic and International Studies titled “Dealing with a Nuclear Iran,” Cartwright laid out what he saw as the difficulties inherent in launching a military strike on Iran’s nuclear program. Topping the former General’s list: the inability of any attack to wipe out the intellectual capital developed by Iran during its research.

An attack on Iran then would be one of delay, according to Cartwright, rather than denying Iran the ability to conduct further uranium enrichment. “You will not kill all of the intellectual capital,” Cartwright said, indicating that would take “tens of years” of occupation if that was the goal of a military strike. “If we want somebody to ‘uninvent’ [knowledge], that’s pretty unrealistic,” Cartwright said.

The calculus that states face today is whether they want to pursue nuclear weapons, Cartwright said, not whether they would have the ability. Iran has not made that choice, Cartwright continued, echoing the assessment of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities. Asked about the worry that the use of force against Iran would prompt the regime to accelerate towards obtaining a nuclear weapon, Cartwright responded that any military activities would have to be considered appropriate to change Iran’s decisions, rather than “reinforce where they were heading.”

The use of military force should only be considered, Cartwright went on, when there is “a problem that diplomacy has run out of tools for, and we want to reset that, so that at the end of conflict, those tools work again.” That reset has to be one that continues to serve an overall diplomatic solution. “You do not end in military conflict,” Cartwright said, noting that planners have to ensure that military tools used fit the desired end state. The policy outlined by the former second highest ranking military officer in the armed services lines up closely with the Obama administration’s stance of “all options remain on the table” when confronting Iran.

Cartwright made sure to stress that those diplomatic tools — including economic sanctions as well as direct talks — have not run out in dealing with Iran. Those talks have to be sure to not be one-sided affairs that include no “win.” “If you’re going to negotiate, you need to understand [your counterpart's] needs, wants and aspirations,” Cartwright said. Finding a way to guarantee Iran’s fears related to its sovereignty, then, “should be a part of the calculation in finding a solution space.” Negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 are scheduled to restart at the end of February in Kazakhstan, after a delay of several months.

Cartwright’s talk mirrored previous statements he’s made on the subject, including when testifying before Congress. Many of the concerns voiced by Cartwright also appeared in a report from The Iran Project on potential military strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. That report, signed on to many of Cartwright’s former colleagues in the armed services, warned that any strike on Iran would be difficult in nature, with the costs most possibly outweighing the benefits.

Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel takes to the witness table shortly to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Some of Hagel’s harshest detractors sit on the panel, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and James Inhofe (R-OK), so it’s sure to be filled with several misleading statements that distort Hagel’s record. Here’s a few things to bear in mind while watching the hearings take place:

1. Hagel has been a strong supporter of Israel

One of the most frequent attacks against Hagel is that he is somehow “anti-Semitic” or hostile towards the state of Israel. In fact, Hagel has maintains a strong pro-Israel record. The smears against Hagel by neoconservatives have been heavily challenged and debunked over the past several weeks. Among Hagel’s supporters include a multitude of past military officials and bipartisan, as well as Israeli government officials and think tanks.

2. Hagel’s Iran policy lines up squarely with the President’s

Hagel has also taken heat for criticizing frantic drumbeats for war with Iran by neoconservatives, and his belief that unilateral sanctions against Iran are less effective than multilateral sanctions. Conservatives have also gleefully pointed to Iranian propaganda that welcomed Hagel’s nomination as a sign he should be disqualified. But Hagel has repeatedly stated that “all options remain on the table” when confronting Iran over its nuclear program, the same position as the current administration. In a lengthy set of pre-hearing questions, Hagel made clear his stance on the matter. “If confirmed, I will focus intently on ensuring that U.S. military is in fact prepared for any contingency,” he said his response.

3. Hagel backs recent changes to the make up of the Armed Services

Hagel has come out strongly in favor of the lifting of the ban on the service of gay and lesbian citizens in the military and has pledged to continue to implement the lift of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While he drew scorn for his deeming a Clinton apointee “openly aggressively gay,” Hagel has since apologized and the apology has been accepted. Hagel also backs the recent shift signed into effect by current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that lifts the ban on women serving in combat.

4. Hagel believes in a future nuclear-free world…just not today.

Chuck Hagel has also been attacked for his affiliation with a group known as Global Zero, which seeks a future free of nuclear weapons. Hagel has been attacked recently with claims that he favors fully scrapping the nuclear arsenal of the United States unilaterally. The truth is that Hagel shares the thought of President Obama that the United States can reduce its nuclear stockpile while still providing an effective deterrent, and co-authored legislation with then Sen. Obama to halt nuclear proliferation. Their vision for a world without nuclear weapons was also held by radical peacenik President Ronald Reagan.

5. Hagel would be the first Vietnam veteran to serve as Secretary of Defense

Should he be confirmed, Hagel would be the first veteran of the Vietnam-era to lead the civilian side of the armed forces. His views towards the use of force were molded during that conflict, along with recently confirmed Secretary of State John Kerry. As such, he has proved hesitant to commit United States forces into conflicts where American goals and interests are unclear. This view was a strong part of his vocal criticism of the Iraq War launched under the Bush administration.

Israeli intelligence officials now believe that Iran would be unable to produce a nuclear weapon until 2015 at the earliest, up-ending previous assessments of its nuclear program, according to a report from McClatchy.

The report counters prior claims that Iran is nearing a point in its nuclear program where it would be able to race toward developing nuclear weapons should it choose. It has been previously determined by both U.S. and Israeli officials that Iran has made no decision yet to move towards developing such weapons. A previous assessment that Iran would have the potential capability to develop nuclear arms by late 2012 was first pushed back when the IAEA reported that Iran converted large amounts of its 20 percent enriched uranium into a form difficult to enrich further, thus decreasing its overall stockpile.

According to interviews conducted with Israeli military and intelligence officials, and briefings given over the last two months, that capability is now at least two years away, with some placing their estimates as far back as “winter of 2016″:

“Previous assessments were built on a set of data that has since shifted,” said one Israeli intelligence officer, who spoke to McClatchy only on the condition that he not be identified. He said that in addition to a series of “mishaps” that interrupted work at Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iranian officials appeared to have slowed the program on their own.

“We can’t attribute the delays in Iran’s nuclear program to accidents and sabotage alone,” he said. “There has not been the run towards a nuclear bomb that some people feared. There is a deliberate slowing on their end.”

Israeli officials also noted a widening gap between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements in public and the intelligence reports that he is receiving. Netanyahu has repeatedly insisted that Iran was nearing the crossing of a “red-line” in its nuclear program, a point at which an Israeli attack to prevent the acquisition of a nuclear breakout capability would be inevitable. Speaking before the United Nations in September, Netanyahu warned the General Assembly that the such a threshold would likely be crossed in Spring or Summer 2013.

Instead, an official in Israel’s Foreign Ministry is quoted insisting that the international sanctions placed upon Iran are, in fact, working. “Iran is progressing carefully, and we think that is because of international pressure led by the U.S.,” the official told McClatchy. That assessment lines up with the opinion of Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. Ron Prosor, who in 2012 said, “[International sanctions are] much more effective than people think and it might change, hopefully it might change behavior patterns if we continue with it.”

This isn’t the first time the Prime Minister has been at odds with his security apparatus over the level of immediate threat that Iran poses to the country. In 2010, Netanyahu and then Defense Minister Ehud Barak attempted to set the military on high alert to attack Iran “within hours if necessary.” That order was shot down by then-intelligence head Meir Dagan and the Israeli army chief Gabi Ashkenazi. Likewise, there are a multitude of current and former Israeli officials on the record as being opposed to strikes on Iran in the near-term.

Netanyahu is currently forming a government after his party’s lackluster performance in last week’s elections. While domestic issues dominated the run-up to the polls, Netanyahu’s Likud-Beiteinu party was perceived as holding a more militaristic line on Iran.

Speaking at an American Security Project event today, a group of former high-ranking military officers made clear that caution is required in discussing military possibilities for ending the crisis with Iran over its nuclear program.

Adm. James Fallon (ret.) and Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney (ret.) were led in a discussion by ASP CEO Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney (ret.) on what they saw as the major costs and potential positives in launching military strikes against Iran. Both Fallon, the former head of U.S. Central Command, and Kearney, former Deputy Commander of Special Operations Command, signed onto a report by The Iran Project in September, outlining what those trade-offs would look like, using it as a launching board for the discussion.

Should a military option be required — an possibility considered to be on the table by all participants in the talk as well as the Obama administration — the panelists sought to make clear that despite a dominant U.S. superiority over Iran in pure military power, any attack on Iran would not be easy. Depending on the objective, the commitment of forces and material required would be substantial.

Even only delaying the progress of Iran by several years would be difficult, potentially taking several weeks of sustained fighting and potentially involving removing the threat of Iranian defenses. “Bottom line is it’s not gonna be a one-time shot,” Fallon said. If the objective is much larger, such as fully dismantling the Iranian nuclear program and fully guaranteeing a change in regime behavior, Kearney said that it would require ground forces in addition to air power, which would prompt, he said, “astronomical” costs.

Fallon said the largest problem in finding a solution to the stand-off between Iran and the West is a “trust deficit with a capital ‘D’.” That theme reemerged when responding to a question about potential verification programs that could form the basis of a negotiated solution. “It comes back to trust,” Fallon said, adding that while little to none exists today, “tamping down the rhetoric is a good place to start.”

Asked whether an attack would give Iran pretext to make the decision to develop a nuclear weapon, both agreed that it would be likely. According to Kearney, the Iranians believe the United States only wants regime change, prompting them to view any attack through that lens. “You have to expect, as a military planner, one of their reactions could be that they’ll sprint towards nuclear weapon capability or increase rhetoric that they will,” he said. That opinion squares with the view of several current and former Israeli officials, as well as U.S. intelligence, who have all determined that Iran has yet to decide to weaponize its program.

In hopes of preventing a situation where military options would be required, a team of negotiators from the International Atomic Energy Association is currently meeting with Iran in hopes of finding a breakthrough regarding new verification of the Iranian nuclear program’s peaceful nature. Likewise, Iran will be returning to the table in talks with the P5+1 group of international negotiators in late January. While the prospects for either set of talks leading to a huge shift in position from the parties, they will provide new life to a process that has lay dormant since June.

A bipartisan group of national security professionals today issued a new report on the efficacy of the current sanctions regime in place on Iran.

In the report, titled “Weighing Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions Against Iran,” the group does not come to a firm conclusion on whether the measures that have been leveled against the Islamic Republic are a net positive, leaving that to the reader of their observations. However, they do note that the current embargoes in place would be more effective if they were to focus in on fewer objectives.

At present, sanctions on Iran of both the national and international variety have a wide-range of policy goals behind them. The most recent rounds of international sanctions from the U.N. have been a result of Iran’s continuing nuclear research program. Those however are built upon both newer sanctions from the United States and other individual state actors and older actions dating back to the Iranian revolution, each with differing goals attached to them.

As the project notes, “sanctions alone are not a policy”:

If resolving the nuclear issue is now the most important objective of the sanctions regime, then sanctions strategies — and the negotiating sanctions associated with sanctions — should be assessed in terms of their effectiveness or likely effectiveness in achieving that objection.

In its findings, the Project presents the positive assessment that sanctions have the effect of demonstrating international support for U.S. policies, reassuring regional allies of the seriousness of U.S. concern, and deterring other states from pursuing nuclear weapons. In addition, the report highlights the sanctions’ weakening of Iran regionally and globally, through the deflating of their economy and relative military strength compared to other actors. Previous U.N. resolutions have implemented a ban on the import and export of military equipment, and the current sanctions have caused the Iranian currency to hit record lows.

The report does not, however, shy away from some of the potential costs that continuing sanctions may bring. Concerns include increased potential for U.S.-Iranian conflict in the Pesian Gulf region and a possible hardening of the long-term alienation between the two states. Also of particular concern to the Project are the humanitarian costs that sanctions bring with them. Iranians are currently suffering from a lack of pharmaceuticals and other items that, while not themselves under embargo, are increasingly difficult to come across for average citizens.

Published by The Iran Project — and signed by such foreign policy luminaries as Leslie Gelb, Paul Pillar, former Republican senator Chuck Hagel, ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Amb. Thomas Pickering — the report is a follow-up to a report earlier this year urging caution against launching military strikes against Iran.

The National Defense Authorization Act the Senate passed on Tuesday includes an amendment with a new round of sanctions on Iran. While sanctions the Senate passed last year focused primarily on Iran’s oil trade, this year’s bill, sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), goes beyond that. The Wall Street Journal explained the sanctions as targeting:

“Iran’s energy, shipping and shipbuilding sectors, already in the sights of U.S. sanctions. But the legislation goes further, restricting trade with Iran in precious metals, graphite, aluminum and steel, metallugrical coal and software for integrating industrial processes. Under the bill, the President would have to report back to Congress on whether any material was being used as barter to furnish transactions with Tehran.”

After the President signed last year’s NDAA, which also included an Iran sanctions amendment sponsored by Menendez and Kirk, Iran has lost around $133 million per day in oil revenue and protests erupted across Iran as the value of its currency tanked. An oil analyst told Bloomberg that the sanctions were “an unqualified success.” “Many judge that Iran might soon decide it needs a nuclear compromise to produce an easing of sanctions,” a recent CRS report said.

But some find this new round of sanctions excessive. Reza Aslan, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, said “if the purpose of this new round of sanctions is to pressure Iran to come to the negotiating table in a weakened position, that’s already happened. …These new sanctions are little more than empty politicking by senators eager to display their hard line, and ultimately self-defeating, stance against an American adversary.” The National Iranian American Council’s Policy Director Jamal Abdi concurred, saying, “every round of sanctions passed by Congress further limits the President’s flexibility at the negotiating table and undermines confidence that the U.S. can make a deal. If the President lacks the legal or political flexibility to ease the sanctions as leverage for Iranian concessions, a diplomatic resolution is impossible.” Abdi added that the impact could be vast, “there will be a major chilling effect as more third-country (i.e. not the U.S. or Iran) businesses are unable to ship or pay for transactions of any goods, including food, medicine, and communications goods.”

Former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy, has said that increased sanctions are the best avenue toward a diplomatic solution. Halevy said in October that there needed to be “sanctions, more sanctions, more sanctions and many other things…The fact of the matter is the sanctions have not brought the end to the program but sanctions are hurting very much.”

Though the Obama administration believes that a diplomatic solution utilizing sanctions is the “best and more permanent” way to solve the crisis, it has voiced apprehension about the current sanctions legislation. National Security Council Spokesperson Tommy Vietor said that the administration has “concerns with some of the formulations as currently drafted in the text and want to work through them with our congressional partners to make the law more effective and consistent with the current sanctions law to ensure we don’t undercut our success to date.” The bill will be conferenced by the House and Senate this week.

A large majority of Israelis oppose a unilateral military attack on Iran over its nuclear program, according to a recent poll conducted by the Brookings Institute. A scant 20 percent of Israelis would approve of striking Iran without American support, and when the question is asked without the American qualifier, a majority of all Israelis and a plurality of Israeli Jews still oppose bombing Iran. What’s more, 46 percent of Israelis would support Iran’s production of “low level nuclear fuel that could only be used for producing electricity” — a circumstance some say could be an outcome of a negotiated deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

The poll results also show that just 23 percent of Israelis conclude that a hit on Iran’s nuclear facilities would set back Iran’s nuclear program by more than five years. A small percentage of Israelis, 24 percent, think America will join an attack on Iran if Israel has already done so. And not surprisingly, 88 percent of Israelis believe that it is very or somewhat likely that Iran “will eventually develop nuclear weapons.” Overall, 58 percent of Israeli citizens either strongly or somewhat support a nuclear-free Middle East.

The result on what Israelis think of war with Iran is in line with many other polls taken on the subject. Indeed, many former high-level Israeli officials have come out against a unilateral attack on Iran, echoing the Obama administration’s preference for a diplomatic solution. They have argued that an attack would only delay, not end, Iran’s nuclear program, could hasten Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and also inspire support from the Iranian people toward the Iranian government. Other high profile former Israeli officials support direct discussions between the U.S. and Iran.

International Atomic Energy Agency director Yukiya Amano said earlier this week that a diplomatic solution on the Iran issue must be pursued “with a sense of urgency,” a position that the Obama administration appears to agree with. The White House, while stressing the threat an Iran with a nuclear weapon poses, has favors diplomacy to solve the stand-off while keeping all options on the table to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. The fact that U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies believe Iran has not yet made a firm decision to build a nuclear weapon has allowed the administration to point out that there is time to allow a diplomatic approach to succeed.

Despite constant noise from the right wing in this country that President Obama is not sufficiently pro-Israel, the same Brookings poll also found that Israelis themselves appear to think otherwise. The survey found that 60 percent of Israelis have a “very” or “somewhat” positive view of the president, which is actually somewhat higher than the percentage of Americans that feel the same way.

Two physics experts say a document obtained by the Associated Press on Tuesday, which the news organization said “suggests” that Iran is “working on” a nuclear weapon, contains a “massive error” and might be a “hoax.” The AP’s publication of the document generated headlines on Tuesday because the graph, according to the AP, showed that Iran was running “computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.” But Yousaf Butt and Faronc Delnaki-Veress, writing in the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists, say that the massive error contained in the document is “unlikely to have been made by research scientists working at a national level.” To Butt and Dalnaki-Veress, the document “does nothing more than indicate either slipshod analysis or an amateurish hoax.”

In the AP article, titled “Graph suggests Iran working on bomb,” the news organization claims that the document was obtained from officials of “a country critical of Iran’s atomic program.” The AP also states that a “senior diplomat” confirmed that the International Atomic Energy Agency “cited” the diagram in a report from last year. Butt and Delnaki Veress, however, say the graph contains key errors and that “the level of scientific sophistication needed to produce such a graph corresponds to that typically found in graduate or advanced undergraduate-level nuclear physics courses.” If the IAEA did indeed use the graph, it couldn’t have revealed much because, according to Butt and Delnaki-Veress, “the image does not imply that computer simulations were actually run” and the graph’s findings are “neither a secret, nor indicative of a nuclear weapons program.”

“The diagram leaked to the Associated Press this week is nothing more than either shoddy sources or shoddy science. In either case, the world can keep calm and carry on,” the Bulletin article summarizes.

Glenn Greenwald, a columnist at the Guardian, points out that similar documents were brandished in the early 2000s:

“The case for the attack on Iraq was driven, of course, by a mountain of fabricated documents and deliberately manipulated intelligence which western media outlets uncritically amplified.”

When it comes to the nuclear issue in Iran, the Obama administration continues to pursue a diplomatic solution, which they believe is the “the best and most permanent” way to end the stand-off. Indeed, former Israeli officials have said that a strike on Iran could potentially accelerate Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The U.S. finds a nuclear armed Iran to be unacceptable, but the window for diplomacy remains open as U.S. and Israel intelligence believe that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Today, however, the head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, said that he could not confirm that Iran’s nuclear work was peaceful with “credible assurance.” And Reuters reports today that “the United States effectively set a March deadline…for Iran to start cooperating in substance with a U.N. nuclear agency investigation, saying it would otherwise urge reporting the issue to the U.N. Security Council.”