The Obama Administration is finally doing something that is likely to lessen the threat posed by an aggressive Iran. It is following the lead of the George W. Bush Administration and looking to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf.

This is according to a January 31, 2010 article in The New York Times. This step has many advantages for the United States and its friends and allies in the region regarding the Iranian threat. Reflective of a “protect and defend” strategy, it offers a defensive solution that serves to demonstrate the aggressive intent of Iran. The alternative is to give the Iranians a first strike option. It also does not require the global consensus that has been holding up the imposition of effective sanctions against Iran. This is not to say that this step should substitute for the diplomatic effort to impose sanctions on Iran, only augment it.

Third, it provides direct reassurance to U.S. friends and allies in the region and strengthens security ties there. Fourth, it will serve to lessen the pressure on the friends and allies there that do not have nuclear weapons to seek them in the future. Likewise, it will lessen the likelihood that the friends and allies that may have nuclear weapons will be put in a circumstance where they would compelled to use them. This last point is critical. Last fall, The Heritage Foundation ran a series of exercises based on an abstract of Middle East regional setting, where all the nation-equivalent players were presumed to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The exercises demonstrated that pursuing a defensive option resulted in fewer nuclear weapons. On the other hand, a nuclear conflict broke out when the player equivalent to the United States simultaneously relied on nuclear retaliatory options, pursued a policy of nuclear disarmament and chose not to pursue defensive options.

The Obama Administration, however, needs to close the circle on this productive step. The plan is to place the Patriot missile defense batteries in four Persian Gulf states and Standard Missile-3 missile defense interceptors on Navy ships in the Gulf. These steps will permit a defense against shorter-range missiles. The problem is that these current systems will not provide a defense to the United States or its friends against the longer-range missiles that Iran is seeking. This will permit Iran to focus on threatening the United States directly in order to drive a wedge between the United States and its friends and force the United States out of the region. It is an obvious window of vulnerability that the Obama Administration must close.

The Obama Administration can close this window of vulnerability by taking three steps. The first is to upgrade the sea-based missile defense system to make it capable of countering longer-range missiles. This sea-based system could also be used to protect the United States against an Iranian launch of a short-range missile off the coast that carries and electro-magnetic pulse nuclear warhead. Such an upgrade program should be put on the fast track. The second step is to restore the larger number of Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors that are designed to counter long-range missiles that were proposed by President Bush. The Bush Administration proposed placing 44 such interceptors in Alaska and California and ten in Poland. President Obama, last year, made the unwise decision to scale back the number to be place in Alaska and California to 30 and cancelled the agreement with Poland. The most powerful step the Obama Administration could take to close this window of vulnerability is to announce that it will revive a proposal of the Reagan Administration and the George H.W. Bush Administration to put missile defense interceptors in space. This is a missile defense program that will serve to put the Iranians on the defensive.

A German politician said George Bush’s missile defense plan was expensive, untested, unilateral…and it made Russia mad. The former Soviet Union claimed the shields were a threat to its national security. Eberhard Sandschneider said, “The shield does not realistically protect the states it is designed to protect. It isn’t solving anything, and there are downsides.”

Arms Services Committee member Senator Lindsey Graham’s on-point Sunday morning talk show quotes are making the rounds. We’ll rinse and repeat: “This is going to be seen as a capitulation to the Russians, who had no real basis to object to what we were doing. And at the end of the day you empowered the Russians, you made Iran happy and you made the people in Eastern Europe wonder who we are as Americans.”

The article cites a Polish survey that shows about half the country’s citizens agrees with the abandonment decision, while 31 percent opposes.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said we’d offer a “defensive umbrella” to our allies, wrote an op-ed for the Financial Times denying that the U.S. is turnng its back on Central Europe. Obama’s plan, she writes, is to develop “a stronger and more comprehensive” system to protect the region.

Alexander Rahr, a Russian expert and member of the German Council of Foreign Relations, concedes that Russia is whiny and sees “grievances at every turn,” but adds that if Russia believes the shields would be a threat, the rest of Europe should be consulted about such defense plans.

He hemmed and hawed and hinted for months. He cut missile defense by $1.4 billion. He was more concerned with appeasing Russia than honoring our agreements and protecting weaker nations. Today’s news isn’t news to people who’ve been following events.

We blogged last month that a Polish newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, reported that sources in the U.S. confirmed the Obama administration would abandon missile defense shields in Central Europe. Today the decision is all but re-confirmed. Without hearing it directly from the horse’s mouth, we can say with 90 percent certainty that the president indeed has abandoned missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic. (Associated Press)

According to the AP, Czech Premier Jan Fischer said he spoke with Obama on the telephone, who said the U.S. will not go through with the deal.

Last August, Poland and the U.S. came to an agreement. The U.S would deploy 10 missile interceptors to the country. The U.S. and the Czech Republic reached a radar installation agreement in July. Part of President George Bush’s “third site” effort to boost Central Europe’s defenses against rogue states like Iran, the missile shield agreements were a source of contention between the U.S. and Russia. The former Soviet Union claimed, rather disingenuously, that both bases would pose a threat to its national security.

Bush stood firm against Russia’s accusations and tried to assure leaders that nothing could be further from the truth. The shields would strengthen transatlantic security against the evolving Middle Eastern ballistic missile threat, allowing us to extend our own security umbrella to our European allies.

After Barack Obama was elected, those who supported the shields knew it was only a matter of time that the new president would not only scale back defense, but likely renege on our agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic. Months ago, he offered Russia a “secret” deal: We’d cancel our plans in exchange for Russia’s help with Iran. Russia refused to issue tougher sanctions against Iran, but oddly enough, Obama abandoned the bases anyway.

Russia got what it wanted without offering anything in return. Putin must be overjoyed.

The Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea issued a statement, which reads in part: “Now that the South Korean puppets were so ridiculous as to join in the said racket and dare declare a war against compatriots,” North Korea is “compelled to take a decisive measure.”

The U.S. and South Korea are acting in response to North Korea’s defiance, but it’s obvious the rogue state will threaten escalation no matter how we respond. If North Korea is testing the new administration’s mettle, Kim Jong-Il must be mighty pleased that George Bush has left office.

Russia is taking North Korea’s actions seriously, more so than Barack Obama, it seems. Russia sees nuclear war on the horizon. A source told Reuters that “The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures. We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean Peninsula.” (Source)

On Monday, North Korea conducted a nuclear test and fired three short-range missiles. Yesterday, the country test-fired two more short-range missiles and threatened to launch more today.

The editorial reminds us about President Ronald Reagan’s tough stance on missile defense, a stance that “encouraged” the former Soviet Union to back down. President George W. Bush continued the policies, but the Obama administration appears set to undermine what those presidents achieved by bargaining with Russia and reneging on missle defense agreements in Central Europe.

As we mentioned last week, Russia claimed it’s willing to back down if the U.S. reconsiders building missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama may do just that in exchange for Russia helping the U.S. keep Iran under control. An excerpt of the editorial:

“Heritage defense analyst Baker Spring told The Examiner this week that extensive ‘war games’ trials have shown that missile defense is even more necessary in today’s more nuclear-proliferated world than it was during the Cold War between just two superpowers. He said the emerging Obama position is flat-out ‘dumb’ because of ‘the unpredictability in a multi-polar world that carries very profound security threats.’ He’s right: To give up on a system with demonstrated success, and even greater promise of saving innocent lives, would be folly.”

This is third time in two years Russia fired the RS-24; the first occurred in May 2007, and the second in December 2007.

Spokesman Nikolai Solovtsov said, “The targets that were set were reached. The tasks were fully carried out,” the commander of Russia’s strategic missile forces…The deployment of the RS-24 missiles, which have a detachable warhead, strengthens the military options of the Russian missile forces in overcoming missile defence systems.”

Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin want President-Elect Barack Obama to reverse the Bush administration’s plans for missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. In fact, the AFP reports that Medvedev called the current administration “extremely inflexible.”

CBS News reports that in the past six months, the “soft-spoken” Russian president may have been employing Cold War rhetoric and tactics. Russia aggressively attacked and occupied Georgia, and Medvedev said America’s economic problems have “now transformed into a full-scale international financial crisis.”

In addition to blaming the U.S. for the global financial crisis, Russia has threatened to deploy missiles on the Polish border if the U.S. goes through with its plans in Eastern Europe.