Rethinking Missile Defense

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 13, 2009
All Rights Reserved.                    

       When former President George W. Bush decided to sign a missile defense pact with Poland and the Czech Republic Aug. 21, 2008, Moscow threatened to retaliate.  Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin hinted they might bomb the sites, calling into question the advisability of such a move.  Signing a $397 million contract with Boeing Dec. 30 for missile defense in Eastern Europe strained U.S-Russian relations to the breaking point.  Bush and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned of a growing missile threat from Iran and North Korea.  While no European country expressed the same fear, the U.S. insisted Iran and North Korea posed gathering threats to the continent, justifying a costly missile defense system that sacrificed U.S.-Moscow relations.  President Barack Obama seems poised to rethink Bush’s missile defense shield.

           When Russian troops invaded Aug. 9, 2008 the Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkasia, President Mikhail Saakashvili asked the U.S. and NATO to send in troops.  Saakashvili blamed Russia for unjustified aggression, despite reports indicating that Russia tried to defend its own territories against an apparent Georgian military takeover.  U.S. authorities took Georgia’s side, blaming Russia for using excessive force and further alienating Russia.  Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have signaled that they will reconsider missile defense in Eastern Europe to improve relations with Moscow.  “If we are able to work together to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, we would be able to moderate the pace of missile defense in Europe,” said an unnamed U.S. official, signaling a new openness to heed Moscow’s concerns.

            Undersecretary of State William Burns held talks in Moscow this week aimed at resolving impediments to improved relations.  Bush and Rice knew they sacrificed U.S.-Russian relations to push forward with missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic.  With Israel’s recent parliamentary elections leaning toward conservative Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, the U.S. knows that a possible military confrontation with Iran grew more likely.  U.S. officials believe Moscow has more leverage with Tehran to contain its growing nuclear enrichment program.  Obama’s willingness to renegotiate Bush’s missile defense plans indicates he believes in linkage, especially with respect to U.S. national security.  Improved relations with Russia should help the U.S. apply maximum pressure on Tehran.  Israel’s unilateral military action against Iran would destabilize the region.

           If Netanyahu becomes Israel’s next prime minister—and all indications point in that direction—the U.S. will need plenty of help to get Iran to back down.  With Iran’s fiery President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatening to “wipe Israel off the map,” Netanyahu won’t fool around waiting for Tehran to get a nuke.  Despite Iran’s protests to the contrary, most experts see Iran developing fissile material to make its first nuke.  Ahmadinejad insists that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, namely, making electric power.  Official statements from Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei indicate that the Persian nation seeks superpower status, only achieved by nuclear weapons.  Giving a little on missile defense might induce Moscow to prevail on Iran.  With the U.S. losing it military lease in Kyrgyzstan, it needs Moscow’s help more than ever.

            Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently convinced Kyrgyzstan President Kumanbek Bakiyev to discontinue its lease to the U.S. military, a main supply line to Afghanistan.  If the U.S. rethinks missile defense in Eastern Europe, Moscow promises more logistical support for Afghanistan.  “The impetus for the deployment of the missile defense systems is the threat from Iran.  If it is possible to address that, then that needs to take n into consideration as you look at the deployment of the system,” said an unnamed U.S. official.  Negotiating with Russia could backfire, especially if Tehran insists on enriching uranium.  Tehran has been offered many incentives for giving up its nuclear enrichment program.  So far, Ahmadinejad has been adamant about the Persian nation’s right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, refusing to back down.

            U.S officials have limited options to avoid military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program.  While it’s tempting to allow Moscow to pressure Tehran, it's probably too late.  Ahmadinejad has shown no interest in ending or suspending Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.  All indications show Iran working at a feverish nonstop pace to generate fissile material.  Ahmadinejad has signaled renewed interest to “talk” to Washington but has given no hint he intends to stop enriching uranium.  No amount of pressure from Moscow will discourage Tehran from completing its atomic agenda.  Obama wants Tehran to “unclench its fist” but there’s nothing suggesting Iran plans to change course.  More tough talk from Washington and the Security Council has backfired.  Relenting on missile defense probably won’t make a difference in Tehran.   

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.