By Lawrence Korb and Alex Rothman

The Obama administration is reportedly considering major reductions in the size the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The administration has reportedly asked the Pentagon to evaluate three options for further cuts: to approximately 1100, 800, or 400 weapons. Any of these scenarios would take the United States well below the ceiling imposed by the New START treaty, which requires the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals to no more than 1,550 deployed weapons.

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the strategic value of the U.S. nuclear stockpile has declined significantly in the 21st century. Nuclear weapons have been useless in all of the U.S.’s recent military campaigns — Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. And they offer no protection against terrorist groups and subnational actors, two of the most significant threats facing the United States today.

In fact, 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. The Defense Department’s strategic guidance document, released in early January, states that “it is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy.”

Moreover, according to strategists at the Air War College and the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, the U.S. could draw down its arsenal to 311 survivable reliable weapons and still maintain a credible deterrent.

Read more

A newly released poll by YouGov and YouGov-Cambridge led the Christian Science Monitor to report that “nearly half of Americans now say they would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities to stop its uranium enrichment in order to halt its advances toward an ability to build a nuclear weapon.” Indeed, the poll found that 44 percent of Americans supported bombing Iran’s nuclear installations while only 35 percent opposed, a strikingly different result than a United Technologies/National Journal poll released last week which showed that only 17 percent of the U.S. public supported military action against Iran.

Why the discrepancy? An examination of the polling methodology reveals a very different set of questions between the two polls.

The YouGov poll asked respondents [PDF]:

Suppose a number of countries decided to take action against Iran in order to
stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Would you support or oppose your country’s Government taking part or assisting in each of the following?

Respondents were then asked whether they supported or opposed a number of actions including, but not limited to, air strikes. The question puts forth a situation in which a “number of countries” are acting multilaterally to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This hinges on the hypothetical situation that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon — an assertion that neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence officials say there is enough evidence to definitely support — and a multilateral coalition coming together to conduct air strikes.

The United Technologies/National Journal poll released last week asked respondents:

As You May Know, Many In Congress And On The WH ’12 Campaign Trail Have Said That Iran Should Not Be Permitted To Produce A Nuclear Weapon. How Far Do You Think The U.S. Should Go To Prevent This?

This question poses no hypothetical scenarios about Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon or a multilateral effort to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The takeaway from the two contrasting poll results is that Americans are not unconditionally in favor of or opposed to military action against Iran. The IAEA and U.S. intelligence officials have expressed concerns about potential military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but the YouGov polling question presumes a situation in which Iran is verifiably seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon. Details such as whether Iran must be stopped from constructing a nuclear weapon and the presence of a multilateral military campaign, are very important in determining American support for military action.

But the Christian Science Monitor’s headline, “Bomb Iran? Nearly half of Americans say ‘yes’ to halt nuclear program,” completely overlooks the complexity of the polling questions and the YouGov poll’s revealing insights into American thinking on military action against Iran.

Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, hot off his primary victories in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, accused President Obama of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

According to the former Pennsylvania senator, because the Obama administration rejected the Keystone pipeline, it “knows” America will need oil. And where will the U.S. get that oil? Iran. And how will the U.S. get access to Iranian oil? According to Santorum, Obama will throw “Israel under the bus” and allow Iran to get nuclear weapons:

SANTORUM: They know that oil is drying up. And they know that not building that pipeline we’re not going to have access to oil reserves. And they know they’re going to be more dependent upon OPEC and so what are we doing? We’re throwing Israel under the bus because we know we’re going to be dependent on OPEC. We’re going to say ‘Oh Iran, we don’t want you to get a nuclear weapon, wink, wink, nod, nod, go ahead just give us your oil.

Watch it:

While Santorum’s accusations that the president is allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon at Israel’s expense is a serious allegation, Obama’s track record on Iran sanctions and Israel simply don’t match up with the former senator’s harsh rhetoric.

Neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon and last week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Members of Congress that economic sanctions were the best strategy to weaken the government in Tehran. The IAEA and the Obama administration have expressed concern over possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.

And on Monday, Obama tightened sanctions, freezing assets of any entities that do business with Iran’s central bank.

Indeed, a nuclear weapons possessing Iran would pose a security threat to Israel but accusing Obama of being a weak ally to Israel has become a right-wing talking point as Republican presidential candidates struggle to attack the administration’s national security track record, which includes killing Osama Bin Laden and participating in NATO operations that brought the end of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s 42 years in power.

While Santorum may claim that Obama “threw Israel under the bus,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in May that Obama made an “iron clad commitment to Israel’s security. [...] And he has backed those words with deeds.”

An exclusive report by NBC News cites two U.S. officials confirming links between an assassination campaign against Iranian scientists and an Iranian exile group designated as a foreign terror organization by the State Department since 1997. Two officials confirmed to NBC that the group, the Paris- and Iraq-based Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

The State Department designates the MEK as a “foreign terrorist organization,” though the group’s supporters have mounted an aggressive lobbying effort aimed at getting delisted through claims it laid down arms in the early 2000s.

The NBC story cited two U.S. officials linking the MEK to the recent spate of assassinations, and a third who neither confirmed nor denied the allegation:

Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.” A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.” All the officials denied any U.S. involvement in the assassinations.

The group, through its political wing (which was also added to the State designation), denied any involvement in the latest attacks. A “representative” of the group in Washington also denied involvement.

The NBC report also claimed that Israeli intelligence services “financed, trained and armed” the MEK, though the story did not go on to substantiate any direct links between the Israeli government and the assassination campaign.

The U.S. denial of involvement last month, after the latest killing by a bomb blast in Tehran, was unequivocal: “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, condemning the attacks.

Founded in the mid-1960s as an armed revolutionary group, the MEK fought against the Shah and his U.S. backers — allegedly killing Americans — in the 1970s, but then split with Iran’s clerical leadership in the early 1980s. Eventually, the group ended up based in Paris and Iraq, where, from the latter location, it was helped by Saddam Hussein to raise arms against Iran during the war between the two countries. Since 1997, when such designations were introduced, the MEK has been considered a “foreign terrorist organization” by the State Department. As many as 3,400 members of the group, which it claims are former fighters who laid down their arms in the early 2000s, are still based in Iraq.

As tensions mount between the West and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program, hopes that a diplomatic resolution to the crisis — a necessary step to tamp hostility — got a bump this week when U.N. inspectors visited Iran. The talks drew praise from both the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, which said it was a “good trip,” and the Iranians. Both sides said plans were laid for another trip in the near future.

The talks — still far from a breakthrough — coincided with a spate of articles from U.S. experts urging caution about a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. So far, many Washington pundits who supported the Iraq war ten years ago have come out against an attack on Iran. As a useful guide by the National Security Network’s Heather Hurlbert shows, a trio of elite opinion-makers buttressed that view with pieces on Monday.

On the website the Daily Beast, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Leslie Gelb writes:

As Western leaders back Iran into a corner and as they are locking themselves into a war policy they haven’t seriously contemplated and don’t really want, now is the time to offer a deal. …With so much pressure now being applied on Iran, it might work.

With good reason (since it’s happened before), Gelb thinks that the Iranians may not take a deal, but “if we don’t at least try the negotiating track, a war of untold uncertainties and dangers can come upon us.”

Gelb’s article found common cause with a piece in CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs, outlining one of the possible consequences of bombing Iran. RAND Corporation political scientist Seth Jones writes that the U.S. ought to make more noise about Iran’s links to Al Qaeda, several of whose operatives live (mostly under house arrest) on Iranian soil these days. But that noise, in Jones’s reading, should be directed at minimizing the Al Qaeda threat, since Iran is a theater unlike Pakistan, for example, where the U.S. has more reach. He concludes:

Finally, the United States should think twice about actions that would push Iran and al Qaeda closer together — especially a preemptive attack on the country’s nuclear program. Thus far, Iran and al Qaeda have mutually limited their relationship. It would be a travesty to push the two closer together at the very moment that central al Qaeda in Pakistan has been severely weakened.

Lastly, the New Yorker has a lead-off column this week by Steve Coll. “An attack now by either Israel or the United States would shatter diplomacy’s achievements,” writes Coll, adding that though Iran’s nuclear work has been troubling, no public evidence supports the charge that Iran is hellbent on acquiring weapons. “The burden of proof rests, in any event, with those who would urge war,” Coll writes. He goes on to mention President Obama’s 2009 speech against nuclear proliferation in Prague, noting:

Obama warned against “fatalism” about the nuclear danger, and he prescribed a strategy to defeat it: “Patience and persistence.” That strategy shouldn’t be taken off the table.

So unlike the run-up to the Iraq war, many well-regarded pundits are going public with their opposition to an attack on Iran, at least as things stand now. But, as Gelb mentions, without some kind of diplomatic deal to resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran, the U.S. may still be continuing down a path toward confrontation with the Islamic Republic.

Last night in his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined the successes of his policy against Iran. But an Associated Press “Fact Check” column of Obama’s speech said the president overstated his case of international diplomatic progress against Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. It failed, however, to look beyond the sanctions recently imposed on Iran to Obama’s long record of spearheading international action.

Speaking before the nation last night, Obama said:

And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before. Its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions. And as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.

Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.

But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better. And if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

Watch the video:

The AP highlighted Obama’s line about how the world “now stands as one,” and wrote:

THE FACTS: The world is still divided over how to deal with Iran’s disputed nuclear program, and even over whether the nuclear program is a problem at all.

It is true that the U.S., Europe and other nations have agreed to apply the strictest economic sanctions yet on Iran later this year. But the global sanctions net has holes, because some of Iran’s large oil trading partners won’t go along. China, a major purchaser of Iran’s crude, isn’t part of the new sanctions and, together with Russia, stopped the United Nations from applying similarly tough penalties.

The start of AP’s fact-check is partially accurate. For example, Russia, which opposes further sanctions, denies that there is even “some military component” to Iran’s nuclear program. However, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency concluded in its latest report: “While some of the activities identified…have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.”

But consider China: While China, as the AP notes, opposes more sanctions and trades with Iran, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said last week that China “adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons.”

Furthermore, focusing solely on the latest round of U.S. and European sanctions overlooks U.S.-led efforts in international and bi-lateral diplomacy. While Russia and China have indeed stopped the latest round of U.N. sanctions, in June 2010 the Obama administration spearheaded an effort to pass Security Council sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program that have proven effective in slowing its progress. Another Obama-led initiative created a U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in Iran, whose eventual report condemned Iranian rights abuses. Those strides in human rights impacted the nuclear program as well, with the recent cooling of relations between Iran and its sometime nuclear diplomacy interlocutor Brazil.

While the AP’s assertion that the world does not stand perfectly in line against Iran’s nuclear program holds some water, it’s understatement of U.S.-led international pressure and actions against Iran ignores the robust progress that’s been made since Obama took office.

A consensus seems to be developing on Iran’s nuclear program among those hired by major news organizations to keep an eye on their own reporting. Much of the discussion so far has focused on the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear program, the most comprehensive publicly-available evidence on the issue. In the document, the IAEA expressed “serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.” As a White House official said at the time, the IAEA report neither indicated that Iran has a nuclear weapons program nor that Tehran has made a decision to build a bomb.

A spate of ombudsmen and public editors of major news organizations have come out and bolstered the more accurate reading of the IAEA report — one that raises worries but does not conclude that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. First Washington Post ombud Patrick Pexton said so, urging extra caution because overstating evidence about the program can “play into the hands of those who are seeking further confrontation with Iran.” He was followed by New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane, who wrote that hewing closely to available facts matters “because the Iranian program has emerged as a possible casus belli.” Now, they’re both being joined by Edward Schumacher-Matos, National Public Radio’s ombudsman, and Public Broadcasting System (PBS) ombudsman Michael Getler.

Responding to reader complaints, some from a letter-writing campaign, Schumacher-Matos addressed an NPR story that referred to Iran’s “nuclear weapons program.” Discussing the IAEA report and the story, he wrote:

It was the closest the UN agency had come to saying that Iran was engaged in a nuclear weapons program, but still stopped short of saying that the country actually had one. The NPR story in wording and in tone accurately reflected this position.

Shorthand references are often dangerous in journalism, and listeners are correct to be on the alert for them. Repeated enough as fact—”Iran’s nuclear weapons program”—they take on a life of their own.

According to [NPR senior editor for national security Bruce] Auster, NPR’s policy is to refer in shorthand to Iran’s “nuclear program” and not “nuclear weapons program.” This is a correct formula, it seems to me, in part because Iran has proudly announced its nuclear program — while asserting it is for “peaceful” purposes, not for making weapons.

Though the NPR piece in question referred in one instance to Iran’s “nuclear weapons program,” Schumacher-Matos noted that, when taken in context and observing the entire story, the item described Iran’s nuclear program in the measured way described by NPR’s ombud-approved guidelines. Therefore, NPR issued no correction and the ombudsman didn’t call for one.

Separately, PBS faced criticism from the left-leaning media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) over one of its reports. Ombudsman Michael Getler wrote in response, “I think FAIR makes a good journalistic catch,” but denied FAIR’s contention that an edit in the piece was “dishonest.” In Gelter’s column, PBS NewsHour Foreign Affairs and Defense Editor Mike Mosettig wrote that it’s “clear from what we did air, that Iran is not at this moment putting a bomb together.”

According to a report in Foreign Policy, agents with Israel’s Mossad spy agency posed as CIA operatives as they tried to recruit members of the Pakistan-based Sunni terrorist network Jundallah to launch attacks against Iran. The alleged revelations come at the tail end of a week where an apparent covert war against Iran’s nuclear program made headlines when a bombing in Tehran killed an Iranian nuclear scientist, the fourth such assassination in two years.

The latest report surfaced through a U.S. intelligence memo on Mossad’s work to recruit members of the militant group. Foreign Policy learned of the memo, which was prepared at the end of the Bush administration’s tenure, and launched an 18 month investigation.

In what was known as a “false flag” operation — posing as another country’s operatives — the Mossad agents sought to build contacts with Jundallah, which is now designated by the U.S. as a terror organization. Human rights groups have long documented repression of Iran’s Balochi minority, both on the basis of sectarianism (Shia constitute the majority of iran) and ethnicity. Still, the designation of Jundallah, which commits atrocities such as bombings of Shia mosques, bars U.S. contacts.

When President George W. Bush was briefed on the memo about Mossad’s activities, he “went absolutely ballistic,” according to Foreign Policy reporter Mark Perry’s sources. Other current and former intelligence sources corroborated Perry’s report.

It’s not clear whether or not Israel’s relationship with Jundallah persists, and Perry does not disclose Mossad’s involvement in any particular Jundallah attack inside Iran. In 2008, before Jundallah’s 2010 terror designation, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker that the U.S. also had ties to the group: “According to [former CIA agent Robert] Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.” The U.S. has consistently denied any ties, and Perry cites an incident where a Jundallah leader was shipped by Pakistan to Iran without objection by the U.S.

The latest assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist comes as Iran and Western countries, through contacts via Turkey, are on the verge of restarting long-stalled talks on Iran’s nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but the West contends, with some supporting evidence, is aimed at weapons production.

When the Washington Post published a headline suggesting that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, the newspaper’s ombudsman responded to reader complaints, intervened, and warned his organization not to “play into the hands of those who are seeking further confrontation with Iran.” Patrick Pexton did so because while evidence made available by authoritative sources like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggests Iran’s nuclear program has “possible military dimensions,” no hard facts determine concretely that Iran reconstituted a full-scale nuclear weapons program after its suspension in 2003.

Now, the New York Times public editor chimed in on a Times story mirroring almost exactly (and citing) the Washington Post. The issue came to the fore on the heels of a January 5 Times story that described “a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear program has a military objective.” The story on the website was subsequently amended and this language removed, but the Times has not yet issued a correction. Public editor Arthur Brisbane, in a blog post today responding to reader objections, lays out several quoted phrases from the latest IAEA report that point towards possible weapons work, but then notes:

These words strongly suggest Iran is conducting a nuclear weapons program but it is noteworthy that nowhere does the IAEA come right out and say this. The agency stops short of making a clear conclusive statement.

But he needn’t only rely on the IAEA. The publicly available reports on the most recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the consensus opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, indicate that the U.S. does not believe Iran has as yet undertaken the final decision to build a nuclear bomb.

Brisbane concluded that the Times’s earlier language was wrong:

I think the readers are correct on this. The Times hasn’t corrected the story but it should because this is a case of when a shorthand phrase doesn’t do justice to a nuanced set of facts. In this case, the distinction between the two is important because the Iranian program has emerged as a possible casus belli.

Indeed, when discussing war and peace, the stakes are high, and sloppy news coverage can, as we saw with Iraq, help push a nation to war. Brisbane is right to recognize this.

While Iran’s nuclear program is a serious issue that must be confronted, those such as GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum is free to, should he like, ignore the facts. But it’s refreshing to know that the newsrooms of two of the nation’s leading papers regard scrupulous accuracy as an important part of their work, especially on these matters.