Looks like new START treaty will now pass - I'm not a big fan of it but as both opponents and supporters have pronounced it is ostensibly in essence such an innocuous treaty [from our point of view] that putting up a fuss about its passage could easily do more harm than just giving it a pass, flaws and all - but that's what troubles me - there seems to be an assumption here that we need Russia viz Iranian nukes and that aborting the treaty would jeopardize that arrangement - but that argument only makes sense if: one, you believe Iran can be negotiated out of its nuke plans [I don't]; two, you can trust Russia as a good faith champion of our positions in negotiations with Iran [I don't]; and three, you believe bargaining with Russia from a position of weakness, no matter how innocuous the traded article of faith, can actually work to your advantage at some point [I don't - I think Putin sees things always in terms of superficial projections of strength and weakness - this is true of dictatorships in general, but especially of ones lacking in any real, concrete power - we think we're horse trading whereas Putin is not interested in horses at all]. My point is, that arguing that passage of this treaty does no real harm but rejection of it could lose us Russia as an ally against Iran only makes sense if we agree with Putin about what's being traded here - otherwise you're just giving away something for nothing and encouraging those already given to seeing Obama as weak.
That being said, there could be intelligence out there that suggests that although Putin is indeed a scoundrel rat, Medvedev in fact isn't and, more so, that his power is not merely illusory and entirely dependent on Putin and therefore the man is worth being courted - in which case, I could probably find myself reluctantly in support of the treaty - or rather, the treaty's passage - the treaty in and of itself will never amount to much.
