PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA announced he will scrap plans for a ballistic missile defense shield in Eastern Europe in the wake of an intelligence review of the threat from Iran. The defense system, which was strongly backed by the Bush administration, would have built interceptor missile batteries in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to intercept any missile attacks from Iran on Europe or the United States.
But according to the review, Iran has focused less on developing long-range missiles—the designed focus of the system—and has instead shown interest in capable short- and medium-range missiles. In light of this finding, Obama explained, the United States will seek new, cost-effective defense technologies rather than building an expensive system targeted toward a threat that no longer seems to be relevant.
“As long as the threat from Iran persists,” Obama said, “we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe at this time will be removed.” Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence agencies reported on Thursday that Iran has not restarted its nuclear program. According to senior officials, the status of Iranian progress toward a nuclear weapon had not changed since November 2007, when the last National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) found that Iran “halted its nuclear weapons program.”
The president’s decision to abandon the defensive missile shield in Eastern Europe reflects a unanimous recommendation of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They have urged that the United States build a sensing system like the sea-based Aegis to offer “stronger, smarter and swifter defense of American forces and America’s allies.” Gates and Mullen left open the possibility of an expanded effort to defend against long-range threats should Iran undertake such advances in the future.
Russia welcomed the move to scrap the shield that it had so vehemently opposed, calling it a “positive signal.” The decision could thaw U.S.-Russia relations as the two countries seek an alternative to their Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which is set to expire in December. Critics have accused Obama of unilaterally conceding political leverage at the expense of America’s national security, but Gates stressed that the decision was “not about Russia,” but about incorporating new intelligence and technology into the U.S.’ defense system.
The decision will likely go over well in the Czech Republic, too. Nearly 60 percent of Czechs were opposed to hosting the facility. In Poland, however, the domestic political implications are of greater consequence as it was a prominent campaign issue for the country’s presidential elections in 2010. Many citizens balked at the idea, worrying that it would expose Poland to additional terrorist threats and potential retaliation from Russia, while others saw it as a bargaining chip for Poland to win more cash and defense upgrades from the United States. But with no missile shield and political relations with the United States that “have not been colder since the end of communism” (as The Wall Street Journal‘s Marcin Sobczyk describes), Poland’s voters might prove to be a tough sell.
For more on Poland’s strategic and geopolitical interest on the issue, see Polish journalist Wojciech Lorenz’s vivid reportage in “Poland: Straddling the Nuclear Frontier“ (World Policy Journal, Fall 2009).
—
Compiled and written by Mary Kate Nevin, an editorial assistant at World Policy Journal.