U.S. missile-defense policy under review

Posted By Laura Rozen Share

Amid reports that U.S. President Barack Obama last month offered in a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to reconsider plans for U.S. missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for Russia withholding assistance to Iran’s long range missile program, sources tell The Cable that the U.S. missile defense program is currently under review.

Among those involved in the U.S. missile defense policy review is Barry Pavel, the NSC senior director on defense who was brought over in the fall from the Defense Department, a source said. Obama administration officials sought to downplay the review.

"What is being reviewed relates to questions of the effectiveness of the system, the cost, which will impact its deployability going forward," said an NSC official. "It's not a big policy review. There are elements that need to be examined, for good governance."

Whereas the Obama administration has publicly discussed that reviews of U.S. policy regarding Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are underway, review of U.S. missile defense policy may be more sensitive given that the issue is subject to international negotations at various levels, as Obama's letter to Moscow suggests.

Obama spoke of the letter sent to Moscow in an Oval Office question and answer session following his meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Tuesday. Obama said that the U.S. missile defense program in Eastern Europe is directed not towards Russia, but Iran.

“What we had was a very lengthy letter talking about a whole range of issues from nuclear proliferation to how are we going to deal with a set of common security concerns along the Afghan border and terrorism,” Obama said. “And what I said in the letter was that, obviously, to the extent that we are lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for, or the need for a missile defense system.”

The administration "has framed this up exactly the right way,” said a senior U.S. official. “Missile defense is a means to deal with the growing Iranian threat. If that threat is dealt with, obviously the rationale for missile defense” is reduced. “If the threat is attenuated, there’s added pressure to develop it.”

Arms control advocates such as Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshares Fund, who contributed advice to the Obama campaign on nonproliferation issues, said the U.S. missile defense program is in great need of review. “On the issues of cost, threat, and effectiveness: this system has not been reliably tested and we have no idea if it will work in the real world,” Cirincione said. “On the threat, the review needs to ask: What is the actual ballistic missile threat that missile defense is needed to counter, what is the future threat, and when will it appear?"

“Thirdly on cost: the [proposed] European system alone costs $14 billion,” Cirincione continued, citing a Congressional Budget Office study released last month. “The overall missile defense program is running at $13 billion a year. Obama all during the campaign said that he’s in favor of missile defense as long as it can be operationally tested, affordable and addresses a real threat.”

Given the shortcomings of the missile defense program on those terms, Cirincione believes the Obama administration is mistaken to try to trade an offer to scrap or delay it in exchange for getting greater cooperation from Moscow on the Iran issue.

Other officials more supportive of the program said that delay in deploying the installations in Eastern Europe was warranted if it bolstered  international diplomatic will against the potential Iranian threat that the missile defenses are meant to address.

“We have to have defenses there by the time of the threat,” a senior U.S. official said. “We can wait some time to do this, provided we do not wait too long, to give diplomacy a chance."

White House officials confirmed news reports that the Obama letter was delivered on a visit to Moscow last month by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns.

Administration officials will continue discussions of issues it raised in upcoming face-to-face meetings with Russian leaders.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to meet her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Switzerland on Friday, where the Iran issue, as well as upcoming arms control treaty talks, are expected to top the agenda. Next month, Obama is expected to meet Medvedev in London, where they will both be for the G20 summit.

 
Facebook|Twitter|Digg

KENNETH SORENSEN

11:58 AM ET

March 4, 2009

The Israel Lobby wanted the Shield in Europe

The proposed interceptor missiles in Poland and the radarstation in the Chech Republic was designed by neocons with ties to Israel to make Europeans feel as if they 'are in the same boat' as Israel. The strategic interests of this country - with an inhabitable surface area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County in Maryland - can briefly be described as a wish to get as many as possible to share its strategic interests. And if Europeans begins to fear Iranian missiles like Israelis does, this is useful in shaping opinions and preparing the ground for military offensives some day.

The plans have greatly offended Russias feelings. It was the very same area that Russians cleared for Nazis in 1944-45. If they had not done this, there would hardly have been any Jews left in Europe. It was the Realist James Baker who succeeded in getting the Russians to retreat from East Germany in negociations based on trust with his counterpart Eduard Shevardnaze, in what have been decribed as the first time in history that a Major Power have ceased territory voluntarily, without a single shot being fired.

To all this members of the Isreal Lobby replies: "Hey, the Russians, aren't they the ones that have restricted the activities and jailed representatives of our people [the oligarchs]? ["No one shall antagonise our people, not today when we hold so much power, and even control The Foreign Policy of the worlds remaining superpower"] Witness that Mearsheimer & Walt's book is called: "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" - not "The Israel Lobby and U.S Mid East Policy" as perhaps could be expected, implying that they control other areas as well, and it would be naive to think that everything that has got to do with Iranian missiles are not duly controlled.

Gauge for yourself
One of the advantages of the small, close-knit Israel Lobby community, is that it is possible for outsiders quickly to gauge its members moods and fears. You just need to open a newspaper in any City or talk with anyone with affiliations to said Lobby, and you will be aware that Ahmadinejad and Putin are considered 'baddies', because they have talked bad/acted bad against Jews. Actually Putin was elected precisely to deal with the Oligarchs accumulation of wealth, which was considered unfair by the public, themselves in many cases living on the bare minimum. The American variants of the phenomenen, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller were accepted, cause America was a new country with enough for everyone. Russia is old, and furthermore has had 70 years of Communism.

 

KENNETH SORENSEN

11:59 AM ET

March 4, 2009

deleted by author

deleted by author

 

NIKOLAS GVOSDEV

7:14 PM ET

March 4, 2009

Threat-based or capabilities-based review?

It seems that the Obama administration review is narrowly focused on the question of whether a missile defense system could work--with the implication that if the technology is shown to be feasible, then deployment would continue. What the last few days of coverage and discussion was suggesting, to me at least, was that Obama might be moving more toward the line of Secretary Gates--that deployment would be linked to an actual, credible Iranian threat. What this report suggests is that deployment might continue in eastern Europe if the review says the system would work--and not be tied to Iran's own capabilities.

It's quite clear that Russia doesn't want this system deployed. And the statements now coming out of the administration will be, in my opinion, interpreted by the Kremlin to mean that even if Russia did put meaningful pressure on Iran and the Iranian nuclear and missile questions were laid to rest, that if the review says missile defense technology works, that the U.S. would find another threat to justify the system's existence in eastern Europe.

On the other hand, by putting all the emphasis in the review on the technical aspects, if the review says missile defense isn't feasible, does this mean the administration cancels the program? Then Russia gets no missile defense system in esatern Europe without having to do much on Iran.

So the signals being sent to Moscow are, from Russia's perspective, quite confusing.

 

J THOMAS

10:30 PM ET

March 4, 2009

Here's my take on that. Many

Here's my take on that. Many of Obama's supporters have insisted that missile defense can't work, even though they do not have access to the real data about it. Argument a priori is sometimes right, but possibly not this time -- even though there's nothing known to the public to indicate it might be possible, still there might be a large body of completely-secret knowledge that can make it work.

It would make sense from Obama's point of view to cancel the project. Certainly not to deploy a technology that does not work yet. But Congress might insist on voting for the money to continue and even to deploy.

So if Obama is going to stop it anyway, he loses nothing by trying to get the russians to give him something too.

And if he wants to stop it but can't get Congress on board then making an international agreement that says he'll stop it is a big help, particularly if he doesn't need Congress to sign it.

Combinations of those strategies could also be true. Maybe an agreement with the russians helps him stop it and stopping it was what he wanted to do anyway.

Meanwhile, the more that americans talk about this the less attention they have for his budget and his tax approach and the banking travesty. There's nothing they can point to here that he's done wrong, they can't even really tell what he's done or might do. Americans are primed to complain about lots of other stuff but this one thing is hard to present badly.

From my point of view, ideally the next step is the russian government replies with a proposal to make sure iran doesn't get nukes and also remove israel's nukes and get every single nation in the middle east to agree to inspections to prove they aren't building nukes. Maybe USA and russia could jointly agree to retaliate against anybody who nukes either israel or iran or maybe any middle east nation. That would help iran's concerns about israel and about india -- two potentially hostile nuclear nations.

We're currently in a catch-22 with iran about inspections. We don't trust them not to build nukes. They don't trust us not to bomb their civilian power facilities.

In the context of a nuke-free middle east, with russian guarantees, iran might well go along.

And regardless whether it could actually work out in the long run, it would be an awesome response to Obama's vague gambit.

 

Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.

Read More

Enter your email address to get The Cable delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner

January/February 2010