Nuclear Policy Shift Undermines Security

In a series of recent actions, the Obama administration has set about swiftly but steadily dismantling decades of established nuclear policy in favor of new mandates that undermine our allies and ultimately weaken our national security.

Under new policies announced on April 6 as part of the administration's Nuclear Posture Review, the option of using nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack on our country is now all but off the table. As long as a nation is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are free to launch a chemical or biological attack on the United States without fear of the deployment of our strongest deterrent: nuclear weapons.

Throughout decades of Cold War threats, presidents of both parties understood that U.S. nuclear capabilities were essential in protecting our citizens and our allies from preemptive attack. The doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" kept the peace by guaranteeing severe consequences for any country unwise enough to launch a mass casualty strike. By removing the threat of a nuclear response, President Obama is both eliminating America's most effective method for preventing an attack and announcing in advance our military strategy for dealing with specific acts of terror.

The new policy would also forbid our military from developing any new nuclear weapons. While countries like China and Russia modernize their arsenals, and hostile regimes in North Korea and Iran work furiously to develop nuclear weapons, the United States will be limited to maintaining our existing, aging nuclear assets -- or eliminating them entirely. Under a new treaty agreement with Russia, President Obama pledged to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 30 percent with a view to an eventual complete disarmament. Even missiles intended solely for defensive purposes may be subject to the treaty agreement, jeopardizing the nuclear shield on which more than 35 countries have long relied for protection.

The president apparently believes that volatile nations with a history of bad behavior will be inspired by our example and immediately abandon their nuclear ambitions. As if on cue, 220 members of Iran's 290-member government Assembly issued a petition denouncing the new policy and describing the United States as "warmongering" and a "threat against international peace."

Meanwhile, Iran's nuclear program continues to advance, posing an ever greater danger to regional stability and to the very existence of Israel, one of our most important and valued allies. Despite repeated promises, the Obama administration has yet to implement tough sanctions against Iran. The White House has, however, found the time to lecture Israel about its defense policies, urging that country last week to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Advising one of America's staunchest allies to give up its nuclear weapons just as Iran expands its capability to target Israel for nuclear destruction demonstrates a reckless disregard for Israel's security, not to mention its valuable partnership with the United States.

The nature of our national security threats may have changed since the Cold War, but it is possible to adjust to new dangers without undercutting our allies and compromising our national defense. America needs a security policy -- and a commander in chief -- that will stop Iranian nuclear development and enhance our ability to protect against devastating attacks, not impede it.

###