As ballistic threats proliferate, the Obama administration retreats on missile defense.


Clifford D. May

Missile defense — as the term might suggest — is defensive, not offensive. Brilliant American scientists have developed sophisticated technologies to prevent missiles — including those armed with nuclear warheads — from reaching their intended victims. If we are willing to share this capability to protect people around the world, Sen. Jim DeMint asked, “What is controversial about that?”

I’d like to take a stab at answering the senator’s question (raised at a Heritage Foundation forum in which I was privileged to participate this week), but first, a little context is in order.

Iran’s ruling mullahs have the largest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the Middle East; simultaneously, they are working overtime to develop nuclear weapons. This poses an increasing threat to Israel (Tehran’s explicitly stated goal is to “wipe Israel off the map”), to the U.S. (a “world without America is attainable,” Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said), and to Europe as well (the softest targets are often the most tempting).

Some European cities already can be reached by Iran’s medium- and intermediate-range Shahab-class missiles. Many more will be in the cross-hairs once Iran acquires long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) — estimates put that about six years out.

Stopping Iran’s nuclear and missile development would be the best option. But the Bush administration outsourced negotiations with Iran to European diplomats who made no progress. The Obama administration has offered Iran direct negotiations. Ahmadinejad and associates initially showed no interest. More recently, they have said they’ll be glad to talk — about respect for the rights of nations and stuff like that, but not about ending their weapons programs.

A strong bipartisan majority in Congress has prepared legislation that would impose what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called “crippling sanctions” — a cut-off of Iran’s gasoline imports. So far, however, President Obama has been in no rush to find out whether such pressure might prove productive.

To defend Europe — and American troops stationed there — against the possibility of a missile attack from Iran would  require a “Third Site.” The U.S. currently maintains one ground-based missile site in Fort Greely, Alaska, and a second at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The Third Site would be in Poland (ten missile interceptors) and the Czech Republic (a radar installation). This would provide “the fastest and most cost-effective protection against the long-range missiles that Iran is projected to have by 2015,” noted Lt. Gen. Trey Obering (ret.), former head of the Missile Defense Agency, and Eric Edelman, fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, in a recent op-ed. They noted, too, that such interceptors have been thoroughly tested.

Nevertheless, as I write this, well-informed sources on the Hill tell me that on Thursday President Obama will officially kill the Third Site. Why? Apparently because Moscow objects — even though the interceptors, while sufficient to block a limited number of Iranian missiles, could not possibly threaten Russia.

The Kremlin’s objections almost certainly stem less from its security concerns than from its ambitions for regional domination. What, if anything, Obama will get from the Russians in return from this capitulation remains to be seen.

Russian officials are not the only opponents of missile defense, however. Also making this a controversial issue is a curious coalition of what might be called the ideologically misguided, the incorrigibly naïve, and the terminally myopic.

In the first category are those who believe that most of the problems in the world are caused by the U.S. and Israel, and that the cure is therefore to “address the grievances” of those who hate us, rather than protect ourselves from them.

Members of the second group have convinced themselves that leaving ourselves vulnerable and promoting global disarmament would set a moral example that such autocrats as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Vladimir Putin, and Hugo Chávez surely would follow.