Blog

 
We reported last week that President Barack Obama intends to renege on our agreements to build missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. It’s official.

Earlier this year, the administration denied working out a “secret” deal with Russia to abandon our commitments to Central Europe. In return, the U.S. wants Russia’s help in dealing with Iran. So far Russia has refused to issue tougher sanctions against the rogue state.

As reasonable people believe, not only is this abandonment a mistake, countries like Iran and North Korea see it as weakness. So does Russia.

While the president says he’s strong on missile defense, although he proposes to cut missile defense by $1.4 billion, he’s passing up the opportunity to protect the region against Iran, assert our authority and power to protect less powerful nations, and present a strong and united front to the world. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earned kudos last week when she talked about the “defense umbrella” we’d offer to our allies. What does this mean in the context of Obama’s abandonment and missile defense cuts?

Iran may have the ability to hit Europe with a ballistic missile in three years and the U.S. by 2015. While North Korea and Iran test-fire missiles and continue to improve missile defense capabilities, Obama’s decision has opened up possibilities for the rogue states. They must be celebrating. Obama has emboldened countries, not to mention other rogue minor players who will seize the chance to assert themselves.

Russia’s probably celebrating, too. The former Soviet Union opposed missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, claiming the bases would pose a threat to its national security.

(Source: Investors.com)

 
On a recent trip to Thailand, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton re-affirmed U.S. support for helping our allies defend themselves against Iran. She said we will offer a “defense umbrella” to those facing threats from the rogue state. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Ilan Berman And Clifford D. May want to know whether the U.S. is even capable of providing that kind of protection. An excerpt:

“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and associated delivery systems since the collapse of the Soviet Union means that any “defense umbrella” will require the deployment of missile defense technologies capable of neutralizing a potential salvo of nuclear-tipped missiles—whether from Iran or another rogue such as North Korea.

“Yet America’s missile-defense efforts are being scaled back. Congress is contemplating a $1.4 billion reduction to the Pentagon’s budget for antimissile capabilities.”

Are President Barack Obama and his secretary of state on the same page? As the authors note, George Bush’s missile defense efforts didn’t go far enough, yet Obama wants to scale back even more. Cuts from the missile defense budget would eliminate programs and reduce others. As we’ve mentioned, the Multiple Kill Vehicle program would be eliminated, and interceptors in Alaska and California would be reduced to 30, down from 44.

The authors note that both sides of the political aisle need to be in agreement when it comes to missile defense. Enemies rightfully see these disagreements and Obama’s proposed cuts as signs of discord and weakness.

“U.S. missile-defense policy should be designed to elicit the opposite response,” write Berman and May. “Our enemies and competitors should be forced to conclude that energy and funds spent developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them will be wasted because Americans have the know-how and hardware to prevent them from reaching their intended targets.”

The U.S. should be giving off strong and determined vibes, sending a signal to Iran that its nuclear ambitions and threats are futile.

 
Last week we blogged about a “secret letter” President Barack Obama sent to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev offering to renege on our agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to build missile defense shields in exchange for Russia helping us keep Iran in check.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to be approaching the situation from a different angle. According to the Associated Press, Clinton talked about the need for protection against Iran but didn’t mention taking our deals with Central Europe off the table. She said the need for missile defense in the region would not be as urgent if Iran were deterred from developing nuclear weapons.

On a tour of the Middle East and Europe, Clinton met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss relations between the two countries. She reiterated that missile defense was necessary and that Iran is among those countries considered a threat. While Obama hopes for a “dialogue” with the rogue state, Clinton said she doubted Iran would be interested in such a discussion.

Russia has made clear that any missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic will be seen as a hostile move, although the U.S. has assured Russia that the bases would protect the region from attacks by countries like Iran and North Korea. Although Russia said it would retaliate by deploying missiles to the Polish border, Medvedev has since backed off from that threat.

 >> Last month, North Korea successfully launched its first homemade satellite and reportedly is preparing to launch a communications satellite. North Korea has stated these “peaceful” endeavors are for scientific purposes. According to a Washington Times editorial, Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, said the U.S. would be ready, willing, and able to shoot down the communications satellite if ordered.

The U.S. believes North Korea may be indirectly violating U.N. Security Council Resolution 1695, under which North Korea was expected to stop its ballistic missile program.

>> U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet in Geneva, Switzerland, on March 6 to discuss relations between the two countries. Clinton’s Geneva visit is one stop on her tour of the Middle East and Europe. (Geneva Lunch)

>> The AFP reports that North Korea has built on its long-range missile test site an underground fueling station, which will be difficult for the U.S. to see via spy satellites. North Korea has stated it will launch a communications satellite in the wake of a successful test-fire of a homemade satellite. (AFP)

 
Despite Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Europe last week, and Secretary of State Clinton’s meeting with the Czech Foreign Minister, Karel Schwarzenberg, this week, we still don’t know whether this Administration will honor U.S. agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to deploy elements of a U.S. missile defense shield in Europe (known as the ‘third site’ deployment).

Obama has successfully–and probably deliberately–provided enough ambiguity to make a decision either way. On the one hand, he has pledged to field defenses against WMD attacks but on the other he has implied that ballistic missile defense programs are either ineffective, too costly, or both.

The international press is now speculating that the U.S. will abandon the third site deal, and do a deal with Russia instead. The Administration has said that it is keen to put relations with Russia on a more positive footing than President Bush.

However, the Administration is making a number of miscalculations if it intends to abandon the third site deal in a rapprochement with Moscow. Firstly, the third site deployment is a win-win for national and global security, as it will defend against ballistic missile attack from rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. Secondly, it is a win-win for American diplomacy, having been backed by the 26-nation NATO Alliance on two separate occasions. To abandon the deployment now makes no sense politically or strategically.

It is wrong to claim that ground-based missile defenses are unproven or unworkable. On December 5 2008, the Missile Defense Agency performed a successful intercept of an incoming ballistic missile. On September 28, 2007, the U.S. missile defense system also destroyed the mock warhead of a long-range missile. As General Trey Obering, former director of the Missile Defense Agency, states in Heritage’s “33 Minutes” documentary, we are not only now able to hit a bullet with a bullet, but can also hit a spot on a bullet with a bullet.

Finally, it makes no sense to throw away close and proven allies in Europe, in favor of Russia. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August last year, followed by its illegal annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia demonstrates its unpredictability on the world stage. It also willfully turned off Europe’s gas supplies this past winter, leaving millions of Europeans out in the cold.

While the Administration should certainly try to rebuild relations with Russia, it should not abandon its security interests or its long-standing allies in the process.

 
Last Saturday at a conference in Munich, Germany, Vice President Joseph Biden said the U.S. will continue its plans to install missile defense shields in Poland, despite Russia’s disapproval. (Source)

“We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven and it is cost-effective, using Iran’s space breakthrough – which saw the country placing a domestically-built satellite into orbit – as a pretext for Washington’s plans.”

Russia threatened to install missiles on the Polish border in retaliation, but Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei B. Ivanov told conference attendees that his country would not deploy the missiles if we “reviewed” our plans.

Biden also said the U.S. will go on the offensive if Iran continues its nuclear weapon development and terrorist sponsorship. The U.S. ostensibly needs Russia’s support to stop rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a message similar to Biden’s. She said the U.S. may “reconsider” plans to build missile defense shields in Central Europe if Iran ceased its nuclear program.

“If we’re able to see a change of behavior on the part of the Iranians with respect to what we believe to be their pursuit of nuclear weapons, then you know, we will reconsider where we stand. But we are a long, long way from seeing such evidence of any behavior change.” (Source)