As if on cue, the same day the Nuclear Security Summit ended, we learned from U.S. and Israeli officials that Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If the report is true, the next clash between Hezbollah and Israel will place Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, as well as Israel’s nuclear installations, well within striking distance of Iran’s terrorist proxy.

Yet the focus of the two-day summit in Washington earlier this week, which included representatives from 47 nations, was aimed at loose nukes that might fall into the hands of terrorist groups like al Qaeda, rather than the nations actively engaged in building nuclear weapons and supplying terrorist groups with weapons intended for use against civilians.

On Tuesday, President Obama said, “[T]oday is an opportunity—not simply to talk, but to act. Not simply to make pledges, but to make real progress on the security of our people.” Ironically, perhaps the most notable “achievement” at the summit was convincing China to talk about the possibility of sanctions against Iran.

Not surprisingly, the day after China agreed to talk, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official in Beijing was quick to qualify. “China supports a dual-track strategy and has always believed that dialogue and negotiations are the optimal channels for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue,” she said. “Sanctions and pressure cannot fundamentally resolve the issues.”

According to initial reports, in trying to convince Chinese President Hu Jintao to join the West in cracking down on Iran, President Obama apparently reassured him that if Iran responded to sanctions by cutting off its flow of oil into China, the United States would intervene to help China re-stock its oil supply.

As if Iran is somehow holding President Hu over a barrel because it supplies China with oil. China supplies Iran with advanced weapons because it helps to counterbalance American dominance in the region! In fact, China is largely responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and advanced conventional weapons.

The very fact that President Obama “can point to the threat of nuclear terrorism is in no small part attributable to China’s proliferation of nuclear and missile technology since the 1970s,” the Washington Times wrote yesterday.

That’s the reality. The fantasy is in hailing China’s willingness to talk as some great achievement.

The other much-publicized accomplishment at the summit was the disarmament of Ukraine. That was soon followed by Canada’s announcement that it would relinquish its nuclear program. Then came—not North Korea, or Pakistan, or Iran—Malaysia and Mexico! To think—it was the largest gathering of world leaders to assemble on American soil since World War ii—and the best they could come up with was disarming Canada.

Meanwhile, curbing the most dangerous nuclear threats facing civilization didn’t even make the agenda at the Nuclear Security Summit.

In summary, then, what have we learned over the past two weeks?

For one, we marked the first time in American history that a U.S. president publicly outlined specific circumstances in which America would not use nuclear weapons if attacked. We were also told by the president that the United States would not design, produce or test any new nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology.

We also learned that in signing a nonproliferation treaty with Russia Thursday of last week, President Obama agreed to slash America’s nuclear weapons arsenal by one third and to cut in half the number of missiles, submarines and bombers used to deliver them. This will then set the stage for additional cuts, the president said.

For its part, Russia, another big-time world supplier of advanced weapons, warned the United States on Monday—just four days after it signed the new start treaty—that Russia might withdraw from the agreement if the U.S. didn’t meet Russian demands on America’s missile defense systems in Europe.

Then there was the futility of the many words and pledges agreed to at the security summit. No meaningful action—just smooth-sounding words.

Nothing highlights America’s abysmal failure to act quite like this story, from the Los Angeles Times. According to the piece, the Obama administration signaled on Wednesday—the day after the Nuclear Security Summit ended—that the U.S. was now prepared to “accept weakened United Nations sanctions against Iran” (emphasis mine throughout). The Times added, “Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said adoption of a new sanctions resolution by the UN Security Council is more vital than the actual measures taken.”

Without support from Russia or China, in other words, the United States can do little more than talk tough. No actual measures will be taken—just weak sanctions. Gates’s comments, the Times continued, “were the clearest sign yet that the administration, facing continuing resistance from other countries to the harshest of the proposed measures, is lowering its sights.”

And yet, the Obama administration couldn’t be happier about the “progress” it has made over the last couple weeks. “I think the work that we’ve done in recent days around nuclear security and nuclear disarmament are intrinsically good,” President Obama said on Tuesday. He praised Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for his “extraordinary cooperation” in agreeing to the start treaty.

Then, toward the end of his remarks, the president seemed to stop just short of apologizing for America’s military strength. He said the U.S. had a security interest in helping to solve the conflicts of the world because, “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

He, for one, doesn’t like the fact that America has superior strength militarily. As he told the UN General Assembly last September, “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. … No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.”

This is why, as the United States busily dismantles its only remaining deterrent against an enemy invasion, it simultaneously pleads with the rest of the world to follow its lead in disarming. “This approach,” Vice President Joseph Biden wrote in the Los Angeles Times on April 7, “provides additional incentive for countries to fully comply with nonproliferation norms.”

The opposite is true. It actually accelerates proliferation—particularly among rogue states and ascendant powers rushing to fill the power vacuum.