Blog

 
Last week we blogged about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Russia, a country she claimed was being “extremely cooperative.” She echoed the president’s intent to “reset” relations with Russia and agreed to stop criticizing the former Soviet Union about its human rights abuses.

Russia has refused to issue tougher sanctions against Iran. In fact, the country’s leaders didn’t even want to discuss the matter. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process. Threats of new sanctions and pressure against Iran under current circumstances are counterproductive.”

What, if anything, has the U.S. gained in talks between the two countries or from the compromise we made on missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic? Columnist Charles Krauthammer asks these and other questions (Source):

“[W]hat’s come from Obama’s single most dramatic foreign policy stroke — the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.”

Krauthammer notes that despite how the talks were reported in the media, President Dmitry Medvedev didn’t budge on Iran sanctions. According to Lavrov, threats of pressure on Iran are of no use. At which point would it be productive to threaten tougher sanctions? The U.S. is retreating on missile defense, as Russia calls the shots, and Iran and North Korea defiantly continue their missile development.

Rather than dealing with Iran without Russia’s help, the Obama administration appears indecisive and desperate at the expense of resetting relations with a country that has all but refused to compromise.

“The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck,” Krauthammer writes, “needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and ‘reset’ buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivet, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday to discuss how Russia and the U.S. will deal with Iran. Clinton echoed the president’s resetting Russian relations meme, and promised to stop criticizing the former Soviet Union about its human rights abuses, unlike the Bush administration.

Sounds like more appeasement. The U.S. must make nice with Russia if we hope to see any Russian cooperation with containing Iran. What has the U.S. received in return?

So far, not much, although Clinton said, “Russia has been extremely cooperative in the work that we have done together.” In return for Russia’s help, the U.S. will ease up on pushing Russia to issue tougher sanctions against Iran and work on diplomacy first. Should that fail, the U.S. will resume sanctions talks.

Iran purportedly agreed to allow inspections of the newly discovered second nuclear site. It’s probably why Lavrov said, “At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process. Threats of new sanctions and pressure against Iran under current circumstances are counterproductive.”

Clinton also echoed Barack Obama’s view about Iran’s “right’ to develop peaceful nuclear power, but not weapons, and contended that Russia and the U.S. are in agreement on this point. After talks with Russia, Clinton said the U.S. will keep up the pressure against the defiant North Korea, which tested five missiles this week. While the U.S. is pushing for six-party talks, the rogue state seeks bilateral talks with the U.S.

(Sources: Associated Press and AFP)

 
Last month President Barack Obama dropped plans to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, claiming that he wants to focus on proven and cost-effective technology that will aid in defending against Iran’s shorter-range missiles rather than long-range. The decision was seen as a move to placate Russia, a country that so far hasn’t given anything in return.

The AFP reports that Russia may not be elated about the decision after all. “The statements that are constantly being voiced raise more questions than answers,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. “We would like to receive full clarification.”

Don’t we all?

The two countries are discussing the new plan. There’s talk the Ukraine might be in the running to receive missile defense shields. The bottom-line is that Russia doesn’t want the U.S. to deploy any missiles in or near Europe. Will Obama go that far to appease Russia, while getting nothing in return? The former Soviet Union has refused to issue tougher sanctions against Iran.

The AP reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Russia to discuss how the two countries will deal with Iran. Since discovery of a second nuclear site in Iran, the U.S. is pushing for inspection to determine whether the endeavor is peaceful. We hope the president will play hardball with Russia and Iran if the efforts prove not so peaceful.

Clinton’s talking tough, saying that we “will not wait indefinitely” for Iran to decide to open its facility for inspection. It remains to be seen whether Russia will agree to harsher sanctions if Iran fails to comply. No doubt the second site has made Israel even more nervous, and our ally is prepared to defend itself.

 
According to the Christian Science Monitor, Europe’s “political elite” are happy about President Barack Obama’s decision to renege on agreements to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. They agree with the U.S. that Iran poses a threat, but disagree with the former president’s plan to deal with it.

A German politician said George Bush’s missile defense plan was expensive, untested, unilateral…and it made Russia mad. The former Soviet Union claimed the shields were a threat to its national security. Eberhard Sandschneider said, “The shield does not realistically protect the states it is designed to protect. It isn’t solving anything, and there are downsides.”

Arms Services Committee member Senator Lindsey Graham’s on-point Sunday morning talk show quotes are making the rounds. We’ll rinse and repeat: “This is going to be seen as a capitulation to the Russians, who had no real basis to object to what we were doing. And at the end of the day you empowered the Russians, you made Iran happy and you made the people in Eastern Europe wonder who we are as Americans.”

The article cites a Polish survey that shows about half the country’s citizens agrees with the abandonment decision, while 31 percent opposes.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said we’d offer a “defensive umbrella” to our allies, wrote an op-ed for the Financial Times denying that the U.S. is turnng its back on Central Europe. Obama’s plan, she writes, is to develop “a stronger and more comprehensive” system to protect the region.

Alexander Rahr, a Russian expert and member of the German Council of Foreign Relations, concedes that Russia is whiny and sees “grievances at every turn,” but adds that if Russia believes the shields would be a threat, the rest of Europe should be consulted about such defense plans.

 
We reported last week that President Barack Obama intends to renege on our agreements to build missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. It’s official.

Earlier this year, the administration denied working out a “secret” deal with Russia to abandon our commitments to Central Europe. In return, the U.S. wants Russia’s help in dealing with Iran. So far Russia has refused to issue tougher sanctions against the rogue state.

As reasonable people believe, not only is this abandonment a mistake, countries like Iran and North Korea see it as weakness. So does Russia.

While the president says he’s strong on missile defense, although he proposes to cut missile defense by $1.4 billion, he’s passing up the opportunity to protect the region against Iran, assert our authority and power to protect less powerful nations, and present a strong and united front to the world. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earned kudos last week when she talked about the “defense umbrella” we’d offer to our allies. What does this mean in the context of Obama’s abandonment and missile defense cuts?

Iran may have the ability to hit Europe with a ballistic missile in three years and the U.S. by 2015. While North Korea and Iran test-fire missiles and continue to improve missile defense capabilities, Obama’s decision has opened up possibilities for the rogue states. They must be celebrating. Obama has emboldened countries, not to mention other rogue minor players who will seize the chance to assert themselves.

Russia’s probably celebrating, too. The former Soviet Union opposed missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, claiming the bases would pose a threat to its national security.

(Source: Investors.com)

 
On a recent trip to Thailand, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton re-affirmed U.S. support for helping our allies defend themselves against Iran. She said we will offer a “defense umbrella” to those facing threats from the rogue state. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Ilan Berman And Clifford D. May want to know whether the U.S. is even capable of providing that kind of protection. An excerpt:

“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and associated delivery systems since the collapse of the Soviet Union means that any “defense umbrella” will require the deployment of missile defense technologies capable of neutralizing a potential salvo of nuclear-tipped missiles—whether from Iran or another rogue such as North Korea.

“Yet America’s missile-defense efforts are being scaled back. Congress is contemplating a $1.4 billion reduction to the Pentagon’s budget for antimissile capabilities.”

Are President Barack Obama and his secretary of state on the same page? As the authors note, George Bush’s missile defense efforts didn’t go far enough, yet Obama wants to scale back even more. Cuts from the missile defense budget would eliminate programs and reduce others. As we’ve mentioned, the Multiple Kill Vehicle program would be eliminated, and interceptors in Alaska and California would be reduced to 30, down from 44.

The authors note that both sides of the political aisle need to be in agreement when it comes to missile defense. Enemies rightfully see these disagreements and Obama’s proposed cuts as signs of discord and weakness.

“U.S. missile-defense policy should be designed to elicit the opposite response,” write Berman and May. “Our enemies and competitors should be forced to conclude that energy and funds spent developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them will be wasted because Americans have the know-how and hardware to prevent them from reaching their intended targets.”

The U.S. should be giving off strong and determined vibes, sending a signal to Iran that its nuclear ambitions and threats are futile.