Focus: Global Diplomacy
The United States recently announced the termination of the European missile defense project, which had envisioned building a control facility and several anti-missile launch facilities in the Czech Republic and Poland. Nominally, the shield was intended to protect Europe from Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles – a threat which Europe has never actually lost any sleep over. In fact, the shield was meant as a means of providing an on-the-ground military presence in Eastern Europe which would serve as a check against future Russian expansionism. The Iranian “threat” was always a fig leaf to cover this, and when the Russians almost had a stroke over it, the previous administrations protested that the missile shield was not meant to stop Russian missiles.
Of course not. But it was aimed at Moscow nonetheless. It is instructive that all of the high-level protests from the former administration and its supporters talk about our commitments to the Czech Republic and Poland – neither of which were ever considered a target for Iranian missiles, just fly-over country. Senator John McCain (R, Arizona) is upset not about its effect on Iranian foreign policy, but rather upon Russian foreign policy, and doesn’t that about say it all?
Likewise, what negative reaction there has been from those two host countries has focused on the Russian threat, not the Iranian one. Former Czech Prime Minister Mirek Toplanek described it as “bad news for the Czech Republic.” Former Polish President Lech Walesa is unhappy with the decision as well.
Notice the common element in their titles? “Former.”
The current governments of the Czech Republic and Poland are less upset, and the deal was never wildly popular with the populations of those two nations, although it was more favorably received in Poland than the Czech Republic. Here’s how the current Czech Prime Minister, Vaclav Klaus, reacted: “I’m 100 percent convinced that the decision of the American government does not signal a cooling of relations between the United States and the Czech Republic.”
Okay, swell. So what is going on here, and does it have anything to do with Iran at all?
The idea that the best response to the possibility of Iranian nuclear warheads was to build an anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe was always really dumb. Nobody criticizing the current move can actually bring themselves to say otherwise. Instead they say it’s a concession to Russia (true), or it undermines our commitments to Eastern Europe (not true), or it underplays the threat of the Iranian nuclear program (really not true). But, “This strips Europe bare to Iranian nuclear attack!” is not a phrase which has passed anyone’s lips – because it is absurd on its face, and we all know it.
If we are going to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and if we are going to do it without bombing someone, then Russian cooperation on some level is necessary. That means establishing more constructive and less confrontational relations with them. It’s no coincidence that both the Czech Republic and Poland have been moving away from confrontation and toward re-engagement with Russia for some time.
So in the end committing to the anti-missiles had nothing to do with the Iranians, but reversing the policy has everything to do with them. It removes a program which was as effective in preventing an Iranian nuclear attack as if was in guarding against the bites of sharks. It replaces it with a policy much more likely to bear actual, tangible fruit.
What’s the down-side?
Well, for one thing it may actually work, which will mean we won’t have to bomb someone (or let Israel bomb someone), and there are folks who think bombing somebody every now and then is just a good idea on general principle.
The other problem with it is that it does not provide much opportunity for chest thumping. The leitmotif of U.S. foreign policy for quite some time has become the need for chest thumping and tough talk. We ain’t gonna let Russia push us around. No-sir-ee. Or Iran. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or China. Or (shudder) France. It is based on the notion that foreign policy’s principle objective is not to actually get things done, but rather to make us feel better about ourselves – stand taller, renew our sense of pride.
Here’s what I think: You want to feel better about yourself? Get a dog.
Related Articles |
loggie20 said:
Star Wars has been a profitable science project.
It does not work.
The Russians laugh at it and the state of the technology shows the planned deployment was merely to increase the rate of proifts of the Stars Wars salesmen.
If it could track, fix and hit a missile any counter measure would defeat it.
Czechs and Poles would have made money selling food and labor to the “sites”.
I guess that is a reason for disappointment, no part in pillaging the US taxpayer.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Frank Chadwick said:
Loggie,
Thanks for your comment. There is a view that it is possible to have an effective missile defense program if we are willing to sink the necessary resources into it. Accepting that premise transforms the argument into “Do we want it?” and “How much will it cost?” But since we have come to the end of the days when we figured our resources were effectively unlimited, and anything we really, really wanted done could get done, that argument doesn’t have much traction any more. That probably has something to do with this decision, as well.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
loggie20 said:
Under Reagan/Bush II it was so important to spend the money that “working” did not matter.
Star Wars will not “work” at any level of spending. Too hard! The kill chain requires sensors that are not in the realm of current science.
What has been deployed has not been tested, realistically or otherwise.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Tim said:
Frank good article mate, you hit the geopolitical nail on the head there. This never really had much to do with Iran, in any case you already have a perfectly good and strategically deployable missile defence system in Aegis BMD and SM-3. Its the only practical mid stage intercept BMD system anywhere, and its already been developed. Then again if the threat increased you have deployable ground based systems like THAAD and PAC -3 which are either well under development or already deployable.
This whole thing was obviously a lever Bush used to pressure Moscow, and then a bargaining chip Obama has been dangling in front of Medvedev in order to get them to play ball on Iran. And now with leaked reports of direct Russian involvement in the Iranian nuclear weapons program clearly Russian constructive is critical to addressing the Iranian issue.
Still the Russians really want the NATO and specifically the US presence out of Eastern Europe generally, which isn’t going to happen any time soon, so I’d expect more of this sort of thing in the future.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Frank Chadwick said:
Tim,
Thanks. I do my best. I am by constitution sceptical about the claims for most missile interceptor systems, but I have to admit that I find the approach of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)system novel and its initial test results pretty impressive. But we’ll see.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Bartek said:
Obama believed that Russia would help USA with Iranian case and as good will rejected this project . And gratefull Medvedew kicked his ass , saying that Russia ,at the opposite to USA , is not selling friends .Congratulations mr Obama .
January 27th, 2010 at 6:11 am