Barack's Missile Defense

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 4, 2009
All Rights Reserved.                    

            Signaling a reversal in Bush foreign policy, President Barack Obama switched gears, appearing more flexible on missile defense plans in Eastern Europe.  Months before Bush left office, he cut deals with Boeing Aerospace, Poland and the Czech Republic to install radar and missile defense interceptors.  Bush’s 2008 decision sent U.S-Russian relations plummeting to new post-Cold War lows, prompting threats from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.  Bush insisted that missile defense was needed to combat growing Iranian missile threats to Europe.  While the U.N. works to restrain Iran’s uranium enrichment program, no European country expressed comparable fears about imminent Iranian missile threats.  Obama correctly read the folly of trying to restrain Iran’s growing nuclear threat while, simultaneously, antagonizing Russia on the U.N. Security Council.

            Iran has moved full-steam ahead on enriching uranium despite three rounds of U.N. sanctions and constant threats from the U.S. and Israel.  Iran’s firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rejected U.S. attempts to halt its fledgling nuclear enrichment program.  Bush’s insistence on East European missile defense assured that Russian would not fully support U.S. efforts to retrain Irans’ fissile program.  Russia has partnered on nuclear technology, especially building Iran’s multibillion dollar heavy-water Bushehr plutonium nuclear reactor.  While both compete with each other trading energy, they partner in their desire to restrain growing American influence.  Backing off missile defense offers the chance of opening up strategic cooperation on a host of unrelated issues, including Russian meddling in the Western hemisphere.  Calling off missile defense opens the door to improved dialogue.

            Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed frustration with U.S. overtures to Iran, citing Ahmadinejad’s insistence on enriching uranium.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen raised eyebrows on Sunday morning talk shows voicing concerns that Iran had enough fissile material for an A-bomb.  Speaking on another show, Defense Secretary Robert Gates qualified Mullen’s remarks, suggesting that Iran was still months, if not years, away from a workable nuclear device.  Those concerns were heard in Jerusalem where incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu engaged in contingency planning.  Netanyahu has repeatedly warned on the campaign stump that Israel would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.  Barack knows that making some concessions to Russia on missile defense could help the U.S. nonproliferation work with Tehran.

            Obama correctly read Russia’s concerns about Bush’s plan to install missile defense systems in Poland and Czech Republic.  Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned Bush that such plans would have real consequences, hinting at possible Russian military action.  Recent correspondence between Obama and Medvedev suggest greater flexibility on part of the White House in exchange for help with the Iranian nuclear threat.  Medvedev denied any deal and said there was “no talk about some kind of trade-off, or quid pro quo.”  While speaking at a news Madrid news conference with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Medvedev insisted there was no deal with Obama.  “No, issues haven’t been put that way.  It would be unproductive,” said Medvedev, acknowledging a constructive exchange of ideas with the new American president.

            Russia has no intention of letting missile defense become a bargaining chip when it comes to Iran’s fissile program.  Voting three times for sanctions on the U.N. Security Council, Russia has expressed its desire for Iran to cooperate of its enrichment program but has no plans of threatening Tehran.  Barack rightly sees the linkage between missile defense and Russian cooperation in the Iranian standoff.  Even with Medvedev’s help, it’s doubtful that Tehran would abandon its fissile program.  Iran realized, like Pakistan, that nothing creates more respect that possessing nuclear weapons.  Obama and Medvedev both know that when Netanyahu comes to power, it’s going to be difficult for the U.S. to restrain Israel from acting in its own self-defense.  Showing flexibility on missile defense demonstrates that the White House is committed to improving U.S.-Russian relations.

            U.S. reliance on Russia for help with Tehran shows that the White House is running out of options.  State Department overtures to Tehran have gone nowhere, with Ahmadinejad rejecting U.S. attempts to restrain its nuclear enrichment program.   Ahamdinejad has called the U.S. a “bullying power” for trying to stop Tehran’s nuclear activities.  Ahamadinejad shows no insight into how his Holocaust denial and threats against Israel has left the U.S. opposed to any of Tehran’s nuclear activities.  If Tehran would stop pandering to extremists and threatening Israel, they wouldn’t face sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.  Whether admitted to or not, there’s little the U.N.—or any country—can do to restrain a technologically advanced country from completing the nuclear fuel cycle.  Whatever happens with Tehran, the U.S. should do its best to find common ground with Russia.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analysing 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.