(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It includes significant reductions in the nuclear weapons that we will deploy. It cuts our delivery vehicles by roughly half. It includes a comprehensive verification regime which allows to us further build trust.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: President Obama praising the new START treaty between the U.S. and Russia signed today in Prague. Let's bring in the panel, Tucker Carlson of thedailycaller.com, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

In a post-Cold War world where obviously the Russia and U.S. confrontation or possible threat is not what it once was, let me start with you, Tucker. What is the significance of the treaty?

TUCKER CARLSON, THEDAILYCALLER.COM: I think it's half good. It's better for the world when Russia becomes weaker militarily and not good for the world when U.S. becomes weaker militarily. Our strength has guaranteed world peace basically since the end of the Second World War.

I think the key though is not the missile reduction but missile defense. And Russia has said point blank we're not for allowing the U.S. to build a missile shield against Iranian nukes. I don't see the Senate going along with it until Russia moves on that.

WALLACE: Well, you brought me to what I want to talk about next with A.B., because Senate Republicans, and you need a super majority -- super, super majority of 67 votes in the Senate to pass this.

Senate Republicans have raised two objections already. One is whether this treaty in any way, it doesn't legally, but whether it in any way constrains the U.S. from proceeding on missile defense, and secondly whether the fact that President Obama overruled Defense Secretary Gates on developing a new nuclear warhead. How much trouble do you think the treaty is in, if any, in the Senate?

A.B. STODDARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, THE HILL: It's hard to gauge right now with the members still on vacation back at home. The sense is among Republicans that this might be a good fight to pick generally on the entire nuclear policy, the new posture review, and also the START treaty.

I think they'll have to get back to town to hear each other out before they decide how much of a fight they are going to mount. I think the White House will push very hard. They have their ducks in a row knowing this is important.

These treaties are usually supported with bipartisan votes. They need, as you mentioned, 67 votes. But I think it's worth mentioning, barring a big fight with the Senate, and that might happen, the fact he got the treaty signed is a win for President Obama. If he did not get it signed and he didn't deliver it, we would be piling on right now about the fact he has continued to alienate the Russians and can't bring them to table with sanctions and alienated the Chinese and Israelis and everybody else. So even though it's more symbol than substance, the fact he was able to get to Prague to get it signed is a beginning and a win for him today.

WALLACE: Charles?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It's mostly symbolism. The Russians have a nuclear capacity that is so old, obsolete, and decaying that they probably aren't going to have to remove any of their weapons platforms to get to 700. We are.

The real problem is what Tucker indicated. If you heard what the president of Russia said in his remarks after the signing, he emphasized again and again that the validity of the treaty that he signed today hinges on the maintenance of the status quo on defensive weapons. He said in fact it's a legal principle that the circumstances that are the basis of the treaty have to remain unchanged.

What that implies is if the United States does something new on missile defense -- for example, if it were to reintroduce the systems it had originally intended to put in the Czech Republic and Poland, say to reintroduce it in Romania or elsewhere, that would be a step that would undo the status quo and it would make the treaty null and void. That is the implication of what he said. The Russians would walk away.

And since we are the ones who will have to dismantle our missiles under the treaty, offensive weapons under this treaty because we have a robust nuclear deterrent and the Russians' is old and a lot more decrepit, we will have dismantled a lot of weapons.

And the Russians reserve the right to walk away if we, if we make them unhappy on missile defenses.

WALLACE: Let me ask you about another aspect of this. As A.B. pointed out, perhaps U.S.-Russian relations are better than they were when President Obama came in, the famous reset button was set -- the significance of that with a third country, Iran and getting Russia on board for sanctions that will bite?

KRAUTHAMMER: First of all, it's a fatuous claim. The reason that relations have drifted, which Obama again repeated today -- he makes it sound as if it was Bush for some reason that alienated the Russians. It was because Russia invaded Georgia and took over two of the provinces, detached them and annexed them illegally.

That's why relations were cooled. Obama reset and said, OK, you get a mulligan on that one and I'll pretend it never happened. Eastern Europeans know what happened, and they worry about it.

On Iran, we have very little. We've got the president of Russia saying again in the remarks afterwards that he's not ruling out the chance of a Security Council -- what was it -- revisiting the issue again. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of sanctions that bite.

WALLACE: A.B., are you as pessimistic about getting Russia on board for tough sanctions?

STODDARD: I will say I think President Obama coming out to say they'll have sanctions with bite by spring is probably going to come back to bite him. He has set many deadlines and he's missed them. We know that -- on closing Guantanamo Bay, on health care, on the Afghan policy review, and on and on.

I think that things are better with Russia today than they have been, but yes, it is true, they said anything that affects trade with Iran is something they can't go that far. So we're in a wait and see mode. But the idea that China and Russia are sort of at the table are better than not.

WALLACE: And quickly, Tucker, your take on the U.S. and Russia and Iran?

CARLSON: I would like to hear a clear explanation for why Russia is opposed to the United States attempting to defend itself from potential nuclear weapon from Iran. What is the rationale for that? And somebody has to explain that to the Republicans in the Senate in order to get this through.

And if Russia is really serious about containing the Iranian threat and believes is it a threat, then I can't imagine why it's the ICBM capacity.