Philip Coyle, a missile defense skeptic and critic, was appointed by the president during a congressional recess to serve as associate director for the National Security and International Affairs in the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Among other things, Coyle believes U.S. missile defense is unnecessary and doubts that rogue nations like Iran seek to attack the U.S. and its allies.

“In my view, Iran is not so suicidal as to attack Europe or the United States with missiles,” Coyle said last year.” He doubts Iran or North Korea would launch a missile attack against us.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote about Coyle in March at The Politico.

“President Barack Obama has nominated an anti-missile defense adviser who may soon receive congressional approval — and put Americans in danger…Russia and China, two countries with nuclear weapons and effective long range ballistic missiles, have helped Iran develop its missile program. Other countries that range from the hostile to the unreliable — for example, North Korea, Syria and Pakistan — also have ballistic missile programs.”

In his 2008 congressional hearing testimony, Coyle claimed that Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) isn’t effective enough to defend Europe and the U.S., but Heinrichs wrote that “a more complex version of GMD had completed a successful intercept test just months before. It is now the only system capable of defending the United States from long-range missiles.”

Despite threats from rogue states, the Obama administration has scaled back missile defense. In fact, some missile defense experts believe Obama compromised our nation’s security and our ability to defend ourselves in exchange for Russia signing the new START.

As Heinrichs said in her article, the new associate director for the National Security and International Affairs appears confident when it comes to rogues states acting rationally, but lacks confidence in his own country’s military leaders and engineers.

Philip Coyle, President Barack Obama’s nominee to serve as associate director for the National Security and International Affairs in the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, is a missile defense skeptic and critic. He believes U.S. missile defense is unnecessary and doubts that rogue nations like Iran seek to attack the U.S. and its allies.

“In my view, Iran is not so suicidal as to attack Europe or the United States with missiles,” Coyle said last year.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote about Coyle in The Politico. She quickly gets to the point.

“President Barack Obama has nominated an anti-missile defense adviser who may soon receive congressional approval — and put Americans in danger…Russia and China, two countries with nuclear weapons and effective long range ballistic missiles, have helped Iran develop its missile program. Other countries that range from the hostile to the unreliable — for example, North Korea, Syria and Pakistan — also have ballistic missile programs.”

Even in this climate, the Obama administration is scaling back missile defense instead of committing to a strong and comprehensive missile defense. Heinrichs notes that Obama effectively hampered our missile defense in exchange for renewing START with Russia.

“Enter Philip Coyle,” Heinrichs writes. “If confirmed, Coyle has indicated he would advise the administration to divest of BMDS.”

Heinrichs quotes Coyle’s 2008 congressional hearing testimony, in which he claimed the GMD wasn’t effective enough to defend Europe and the U.S., but Heinrichs says “a more complex version of GMD had completed a successful intercept test just months before. It is now the only system capable of defending the United States from long-range missiles.”

Heinrichs asks why Coyle would oppose GMD, a system necessary to protect the U.S. The answer lies in Coyle’s doubts that Iran or North Korea would launch a missile attack against us and whether GMD could deal with the onslaught if either country launched such an attack.

“Coyle’s confidence in these two countries’ rationality is startling,” Heinrichs writes. “His lack of confidence in our own military leaders and engineers is disconcerting.”

Read the full article at The Politico.

Last year, President Barack Obama nominated missile defense critic Philip Coyle to serve as associate director for the National Security and International Affairs in the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. (See our previous post.) Among other things, Coyle believes U.S. missile defense is unnecessary and doubts that rogue nation Iran seeks to attack the U.S. and its allies.

“In my view, Iran is not so suicidal as to attack Europe or the United States with missiles,” Coyle said last year. Doubting Iran’s nuclear ambitions and ballistic missile capabilities, even as the country blatantly defies the U.N. Security Council, itself sounds suicidal. Most of Iran’s threats may be closer to bluster than reality, but the U.S. and other countries can’t afford to underestimate Iran. We must prepare ourselves for the eventual day Iran will act on its threats.

Coyle’s nomination doesn’t surprise Jamie M. Fly, executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, given President Obama’s disarmament approach to foreign policy. Fly notes that conservative lawmakers, the Heritage Foundation, and other think tanks have routinely pointed out Coyle’s shortcomings and their concern for long term safety.

“There is enough concern on Capitol Hill about Coyle’ views that a hold has been placed on his nomination,” he writes on NRO’s The Corner blog. “Some will argue that a position in the Office of Science and Technology Policy shouldn’t deserve much attention, let alone concern. It is true that this is a part of the White House that traditionally has not played a key role in major policy decisions. However, it is likely that an individual like Mr. Coyle would be unable to resist the urge to use his position to attempt to influence policy debates about issues, such as missile defense, that he has worked on for years.”

John Noonan at the Weekly Standard blog calls Coyle “a long time opponent of ballistic missile defense…an ideologue whose appointment could prove harmful to U.S. security.”

A former assistant secretary of defense and director of operational test and evaluation at the Pentagon, Coyle will advise the president on various scientific and national security issues. He called Bush-era testing on ballistic missiles “shoddy” and “thin” and disparaged the former president’s plan to deploy missile defense shields to Poland and the Czech Republic.

“In my view, Iran is not so suicidal as to attack Europe or the United States with missiles,” Coyle said. “But if you believe that Iran is bound and determined to attack Europe or America, no matter what, then I think you also have to assume that Iran would do whatever it takes to overwhelm our missile defenses, including using decoys to fool the defenses, launching stealthy warheads, and launching many missiles, not just one or two.”

Given these statements, Coyle obviously doesn’t believe Iran might have an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by 2015. The U.S. is developing land-based SM-3 missiles to counteract this threat, but the target date for completion is 2020, five years after Iran’s possible ICBM capabilities.

Despite these projections, Coyle believes our country’s spending on missile defense isn’t justified.

As a vocal critic of Bush’s missile defense and supporter of Obama’s way of thinking, Coyle likely will breeze through the vetting process and take his place among the president’s team of appeasement-minded advisors.

Read more at the Foundry blog.