Given this administration’s resurging plans for regional missile defense schemes in both Europe and Asia, President Barack Obama’s recent open-mike admission to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have more freedom in his national security decision-making once he wins re-election is not a comforting thought. For a guy who promises “a world without nuclear weapons,” Obama seems awfully intent on incentivizing both Russia and China to field some more.
With regard to Europe, America’s case for even limited missile defense is weak. We are told it is all about Iran and has nothing to do with Russia. But if that is the case, why not just continue to load up our regional allies in the Middle East with missile defense capabilities, as we are already doing, and be done with it? Why pick the additional unnecessary fight with Russia on this score?
The storyline that says an attacked or emboldened Iran will pop off nuclear missiles in the direction of East-Central Europe is pure fantasy. In any war against the combined forces of Israel and the U.S., Iran will not be wasting missiles on Poland or the Czech Republic. If Europeans really want this missile defense capacity, it is not because they fear Iranian retaliation. They want it as insurance against Russia, pure and simple. This is a classic case of symbolically threatening to kill the chicken (Tehran) to scare the monkey (Moscow).