The Administration is calling it “New START,” with START standing for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, but it’s been a while since we had a treaty with a place name, and the President did sign this treaty today in the same city where he called for the abolition of nuclear weapons a year ago. So I’m going with the Prague Treaty.

In remarks in front of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and others assembled, President Obama hailed the Prague Treaty as the fruit of binational cooperation and global leadership. He quoted Russian nuclear scientist Arkady Brish, who renounced his invention later in life, saying “We hope humanity will reach the moment when there is no need for nuclear weapons, when there is peace and calm in the world.” He said that the treaty “sets the stage for further cuts,” and promised to “expand our discussions” on missile defense with the goal of US-Russian cooperation there (maybe the Russians can figure out how to make it work, or at least tell us that it doesn’t). He set the treaty in the context of a nonproliferation strategy, with unusually strong words about Iran in the middle of a treaty signing:

Earlier this week, the United States formally changed our policy to make it clear that those non-nuclear weapons states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and their non-proliferation obligations will not be threatened by America’s nuclear arsenal. This demonstrates, once more, America’s commitment to the NPT as a cornerstone of our security strategy. Those nations that follow the rules will find greater security and opportunity. Those nations that refuse to meet their obligations will be isolated, and denied the opportunity that comes with international integration.

That includes accountability for those that break the rules – otherwise the NPT is just words on a page. That is why the United States and Russia are part of a coalition of nations insisting that the Islamic Republic of Iran face consequences, because they have continually failed to meet their obligations. We are working together at the UN Security Council to pass strong sanctions on Iran. And we will not tolerate actions that flout the NPT, risk an arms race in a vital region, and threaten the credibility of the international community and our collective security.

As Obama said, the top nations on the Security Council are meeting today to discuss a new sanctions regime for Iran. I suppose arms reduction means zero tolerance for nuclear proliferation, but that assumes much about Iran that is not known or contradicted by the facts, and inside this speech it seemed very discordant.

Under the Prague Treaty, both the US and Russia will carry around 1,550 warheads, a reduction of about 30% in their arsenals, with potentially deeper cuts down the road in future agreements. That discussion could start as soon as next week, with a major nuclear security conference in Washington, featuring heads of state from around the globe, including China.

The Prague Treaty also reduces launchers and deployed ICBMs, and creates a verification structure that allows for full transparency on the limits set. The treaty lasts for 10 years.

With signing complete, the action moves to the Senate for ratification. The President needs 67 votes to get this treaty through, which sounds like a virtual impossibility in this era of partisanship and endless Waterloos. The White House is already pushing back on some of the justifications for opposition made by Republicans in recent weeks. In a blog post by Deputy National Security Advisor Brian McKeon, he tries to dispel doubts about the missile defense part of the treaty, which has become a flashpoint.

One issue relates to U.S. plans for missile defense. The Russian government made a “unilateral statement” in connection with the treaty signing that indicated that if there is a qualitative and quantitative build-up in the U.S. missile defense system, such a development would justify Russia’s withdrawal from the New START Treaty.

There is nothing particularly novel about this kind of unilateral statement. In the long history of arms control agreements between the United States and Russia (and before that the Soviet Union), dating back to the Nixon Administration, the two countries have frequently issued such statements at the end of a long treaty negotiation. Sometimes these statements would make public a political understanding between the parties. Other times they would represent one party’s view or interpretation of an issue; in many cases, the other party would respond to give its own view.

The Russian statement falls into the latter category. It is described as a “unilateral” statement for a reason – the Russian government made a statement about missile defense with which the United States did not, and does not, agree. If we had agreed to it, the issue would be put into the treaty text, or issued as a “joint” statement. In fact, the United States issued its own unilateral statement, indicating that it plans to continue to develop and deploy its missile defense systems in order to defend itself. Neither the Russian statement nor the U.S. statement is legally binding on the other party. But each side is making its intentions clear — to the other party, and to the world.

That definitely makes me feel great! But obviously, the intention here is to say that the Prague Treaty has no bearing on missile defense whatsoever.

Ratification will likely be a tough road, but the Administration seems committed to getting the Prague Treaty through the Senate. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a press conference recently, “I believe that a vast majority of the Senate at the end of the day will see that this is in America’s interest and it goes way beyond politics.”