Blog

Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced the expansion of Patriot missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf. The advantages to the U.S. and allies are obvious. A strong missile defense system in the Gulf would serve to protect and defend nations threatened by Iran and send a message that the U.S. and its allies are serious about stopping the rogue state.

At the time, missile defense experts expressed concern that the system would defend against short-range missiles, not the long-range missiles Iran seeks to build.

In September, sources reported that the U.S. intended to sell Saudi Arabia fighter aircraft and defense weapons worth billions. This week, a spokesman from U.S. defense contractor Raytheon confirmed that those plans are underway. An excerpt:

“The United States said last month Saudi Arabia wants to spend as much as $60 billion on aircraft, helicopters and other arms, kicking off a spending spree in the Gulf anticipating an escalation of the West’s row with Iran over its nuclear plans.
…
“Diplomats expect smaller Arab states in the world’s top oil producing region to follow with arms orders as they worry they might become targets for strikes. Kuwait was also interested in an upgrade of Patriots, while talks were also going on with Qatar, Culligan told reporters late on Saturday, declining to provide a price tag.

“Raytheon said it was in talks for another arms deal in the United Arab Emirates.

The firm was also hoping to sign homeland security and cyber security deals with Saudi Arabia, he added. ‘We’re working on proposals,’ he said.”

Last month, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke at the Atlantic Council to discuss factors that should be considered as NATO drafts a new “Strategic Concept,” which defines NATO’s purpose, nature, and security tasks.

Among other things, Gates said Europe has underfunded defense budgets for NATO, and consequently, has undermined joint security. He noted the importance of missile defense, as land invasion is no longer a pressing threat. The danger of missile attacks is more critical and “more likely to come from outside NATO’s traditional borders; and more likely to require new approaches that incorporate far more than just military power.”

This week, Gates is visiting Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah to discuss missile defense and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In addition to deploying missile shields to Poland and Romania, the U.S. seeks to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf. Specifically, 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. Although these steps will permit a defense against shorter-range missiles, they won’t provide a defense to the U.S. or our allies against the longer-range missiles Iran wants to build.

Gates will also discuss tougher sanctions against Iran. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said, “It’s not lost on the Iranians, all of the security cooperation that’s been going on for years now and all the systems that have been purchased over the last several years, (are) all designed to counter-weight and protect against the growing threat posed by Iran.” (Reuters)

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.