Blog

Last month, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke at the Atlantic Council to discuss factors that should be considered as NATO drafts a new “Strategic Concept,” which defines NATO’s purpose, nature, and security tasks.

Among other things, Gates said Europe has underfunded defense budgets for NATO, and consequently, has undermined joint security. He noted the importance of missile defense, as land invasion is no longer a pressing threat. The danger of missile attacks is more critical and “more likely to come from outside NATO’s traditional borders; and more likely to require new approaches that incorporate far more than just military power.”

This week, Gates is visiting Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah to discuss missile defense and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In addition to deploying missile shields to Poland and Romania, the U.S. seeks to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf. Specifically, the plan is to place the Patriot missile defense batteries in four Persian Gulf states and Standard Missile-3 missile defense interceptors on Navy ships in the Gulf. Although these steps will permit a defense against shorter-range missiles, they won’t provide a defense to the U.S. or our allies against the longer-range missiles Iran wants to build.

Gates will also discuss tougher sanctions against Iran. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said, “It’s not lost on the Iranians, all of the security cooperation that’s been going on for years now and all the systems that have been purchased over the last several years, (are) all designed to counter-weight and protect against the growing threat posed by Iran.” (Reuters)

From Heritage:

1. Impose and enforce the strongest sanctions. The U.S. should push other concerned countries to enforce targeted sanctions on the Iranian regime and its internal security organs; ban all foreign investment, loans and credits, subsidized trade, and refined petroleum exports to Iran; and deny visas to its officials.

2. Drop opposition to U.S. gasoline sanctions. Both houses of Congress voted by large bipartisan majorities to impose sanctions against firms that export refined petroleum products to Iran. Yet the White House is dragging its feet, arguing such sanctions will impede diplomatic efforts at the U.N., even though the U.N. is unlikely to approve crippling sanctions.

3. Target public diplomacy to expose the regime’s human rights abuses. Such a campaign should document the abuses and aid victims, step up broadcasting and support for independent Iranian broadcasters outside the country to expose corruption of officials and the regime’s aid to terrorists, and educate Iranians about genuine representative democracy.

4. Facilitate communications among dissidents. The U.S. government should help opposition groups communicate privately with each other using Web-based groups outside Iran and Bluetooth technology that can evade government surveillance and censorship.

5. Aid opposition groups. U.S. intelligence services should provide covert financial and material assistance to democratic opposition groups to strengthen opposition to the regime, similar to the help extended to the Polish Solidarity movement during the Cold War.

6. Reduce Iran’s meddling in Iraq. The U.S. should maintain the strongest troop presence Iraq would permit to aid in containing and reducing Iran’s influence. A stable and democratic Iraq offers Shiites an alternative model that helps de-legitimize Iran’s Islamist system.

7. Target covert actions to discredit the regime. Intelligence services should distribute printouts of Iranian officials’ foreign bank accounts and other assets and pictures of their mansions and villas outside Iran to drive a wedge between the corrupt regime and the people.

8. Modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The U.S. should develop and deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons to convince Tehran that any attempt to use nuclear weapons will likely fail to achieve whatever political and military objectives they have in mind.

9. Expand U.S. military capabilities to defend U.S. interests and allies. Targeting and holding at risk the regime’s top leaders, its nuclear weapons program, and its internal security forces would protect the U.S. from Iranian aggression.

10. Deploy a robust and comprehensive missile defense system. Land-based, sea-based, and ultimately space-based systems that can defend against Iranian ballistic missiles would minimize the ability of Iran to threaten the U.S. and its allies.

On the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Iran announced that it was now a nuclear state, capable of enriching higher levels of uranium. The rogue nation recently announced plans to build two more uranium enrichment sites, although it still claims the nuclear enrichment is for peaceful and scientific purposes.

Despite these developments, Iran stated in a document reportedly seen by news organizations that it’s ready to give up most of its stockpile of enriched uranium in a simultaneous exchange for fuel rods, and the exchange must take place on its territory. The U.N. has rejected this offer. Under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s terms, Iran would hand over the uranium and wait up to a year to receive fuel rods.

China and Russia both refuse to support further sanctions against Iran and claim to seek a diplomatic solution.

Meanwhile, Iran revealed plans to build 10 more nuclear enrichment plans, including the two previously mentioned. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed an energy embargo against Iran, with or without the U.N.’s approval.

How will the U.S. respond?

General David Petraeus said on “Meet the Press” that given our attempts to resolve differences with Iran diplomatically, the U.S. can “now to go on what is termed the pressure track. That’s the course on which we are embarked now.” He added that the administration will “send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have… about Iran’s activities in the nuclear program.”

Talking tough is one thing; following it up with action is another. What will this “pressure track” against Iran entail? The U.S. has already given Iran too wide a berth. While we’re trying to be diplomatic, Iran is enriching more uranium and building more nuclear sites.

Last week, the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano wrote at National Journal Online that we can speed up the process of freedom in Iran and contain nuclear proliferation by adopting “tough unilateral sanctions that hit the regime in the gut.” He added that the president needs to “spare no effort to shame Iran for its horrific human rights record, and…put the ‘third site’—the deployment of missile defense to Poland and the Czech Republic–back on the table. Take out every avenue Tehran has to threaten the West.”

(Sources: Reuters and AFP)

In his recent Washington Examiner column, the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano recounts the successful Airborne Laser (ABL) test that occurred earlier this month. Within two minutes of launching, the high-energy laser found its target and destroyed it.

“Not bad for a defensive weapon once ridiculed as science fiction,” Carafano writes. “Skeptics even persuaded the Obama administration to slot the airborne laser for the ninth circle of procurement hell — a pit for dead-end research and development programs. But this month’s dramatic success has put the critics on their heels…The Point Mugu exercise was what engineers call a ‘proof of principle’ test. They tested it. It is proven.”

Despite the ABL’s success, the Obama administration opted not to build a second test aircraft. Why? “It will argue laser missile defense makes no sense because the weapon’s range is limited to a few hundred kilometers. That would put the lumbering aircraft well within the range of air defense systems fielded by the likes of North Korea and Iran.”

But shorter-range Scud missiles, however, are threats that the ABL can counter. The former Soviet Union made these missiles, and today other countries make their own. Carafano notes that Iran’s Shahab-3 is an advanced Scud variant probably capable of traveling 1,000 kilometers and carrying a warhead.

“It couldn’t reach Washington from Tehran, but then, it wouldn’t have to. Iran could easily extend the missile’s reach simply by moving it to a commercial freighter and firing it from nearby using an improvised vertical launch tube disguised as cargo.”

Is this something worth worrying about? Please post a comment at the Washington Examiner.

In response to U.S. plans to deploy missile defense shields to Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia threatened to send short-range Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, near the Polish border. After President Barack Obama took office, Russia rescinded the threat.

It was speculated that Russia changed its mind because the Obama administration seemed to be taking an appeasement approach in exchange for the former Soviet Union’s help with Iran.

That help never panned out. In fact, Russia made a deal to sell S-300 missiles to Iran, and has refused to issue tougher sanctions against the country, even as Iran announced its intend to develop high-grade nuclear fuel and enrich more uranium.

No doubt Russia hoped the Obama administration would put missile deployment to Eastern and Central Europe on hold. Those hopes were dashed. Not only is the U.S. deploying shields to Poland and Romania, it plans to beef up missile defense in the Persian Gulf.

According to Reuters, it looks like the Iskander threat is back in play.

Transdniestria, a region of Moldova, said it’s open to hosting Russian missiles “As far as the Iskander…is concerned,” said leader Igor Smirnov, “we have long said we are ready.”

Moldava’s acting president rejected that claim, however, calling Transdniestria “an artificial creation” with no authority to speak for relations between Moldova and Russia.

But what does Russia say?

In 2008, Russia denied a deal to sell S-300 missiles to Iran, a rogue state sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. A Russian arms-export monopoly denied knowledge of such a sale. Although a Russian foreign ministry spokesman said there was no S-300 missile sale and referred to Iran as “unstable” in 2008, Russia has refused to join us in calling for tougher sanctions against Iran and said, presumably with a straight face, that there’s no “military element” to Iran’s uranium enrichment.

Fast forward to 2010, and Russia has since come clean and confessed to the S-300 deal with the “unstable” Iran. Earlier this month, Iran accused Russia of stalling on delivering the weapons. According to Reuters, Russia’s Security Council denied this accusation.

Security Council deputy secretary Vladimir Nazarov said, “There is a signed contract…which we must implement, but deliveries have not started yet. This deal is not restricted by any international sanctions, because the talk is about deliveries of an exclusively defensive weapon.”

Is it possible Russia has no intention of delivering the weapons, and the arms sale agreement is Russia’s leverage against the U.S.?

The deputy secretary warned the U.S. and Israel not to preemptively strike Iran, “a neighbor of Iran.” Is Russia concerned about stopping Iran’s nuclear program or helping Iran maintain the program for its own interests? Russia is selling so-called defensive weapons to an unstable country that has Israel in its sights, and refuses to agree on stronger sanctions. After denying the deal to sell S-300s, Russia has gone on record and admitted the deal.

From where we’re sitting, Russia seems more interested in aiding Iran than containing Iran.

(Image source: Getty Images)

On National Journal Online’s national security blog, the editor asked several experts what Obama should do next with Iran. On February 11, anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Iran announced that it was capable of making high-grade nuclear fuel and kept the so-called green movement in check by suppressing Internet services.

Iran’s intentions are clear. “What Should Obama Do Next On Iran?” The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano responds:

“All Obama has to do is-remember Neda. All Neda Agha-Soltan wanted was freedom for everyone. Neda was not alone. It seems like ancient history now, but many joined her in the street protests following the disputed Iranian presidential elections last June. When Neda took to the streets on June 20 she had lots of company. Thousands flooded the streets of Tehran, stranding her cramped Peugeot 206 in a snarl of traffic. Sweltering heat and an inoperative air-conditioner prompted her and two friends to abandon the car. They walked a short way to get a closer look.

“Neda Agha-Soltan was shot square in the chest. She bled out on the street. She did not die in obscurity.

“At least two bystanders captured the shooting on cell phone cameras. The video was uploaded to the Internet–and became the social networking shot heard round the world. Before the end of the day, exchanges on Twitter using the hashmark–#neda–became one of the top trending topics by the end of the day. By June 22, an Associated Press report based exclusively on Internet sources took the story global.

“Tehran in 2009 is not Tiananmen Square in 1989. It is unlikely that the powerful voice of opposition, for which Neda became a universal symbol, will ever be silenced. The Internet will make sure of that.

“The government’s response to the Green movement has only made it turn more oppressive and odious in the eyes of both Iranians and the outside world. Further, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has killed any prospects of accommodation with the West.

“In short, this is a government that cannot stand. While the opposition still lacks the unity to take down Ahmadinejad and company from within, it is only a matter of time. The regime in Iran is primed to be history’s first victim to the Twitter Revolution.

“Obama can help speed the process. First, the United States needs to adopt tough unilateral sanctions that hit the regime in the gut. Second, Obama needs to spare no effort to shame Iran for its horrific human rights record. Third, put the “third site”—the deployment of missile defense to Poland and the Czech Republic–back on the table. Take out every avenue Tehran has to threaten the West.”

For the last couple of weeks, Iran has been promising to “stun” the West on February 11, anniversary of the Islamic revolution, as it continues developing nuclear capabilities in defiance of the U.S. and other world powers.

This threat comes on the heels of Iran’s announcement that it will produce higher-grade uranium for a nuclear reactor. Despite denials, Iran clearly is on the road to nuclear weapons.

The U.S. and other countries likely will push for tougher sanctions. So far, Russia has refused to impose stronger sanctions against Iran. Russia’s reticence at this point is particularly odd. Nikolai Patrushev, Russian secretary of the United Nations Security Council, said the West’s concerns about the rogue state’s nuclear program are well founded, and despite Iran’s words, its actions “raise doubts in other countries and those doubts are quite valid.” (Reuters)

The understatement of the decade.

Iran’s actions speak louder than anything its leaders have to say. In addition to uranium enrichment, for example, the country plans to build unmanned aircraft designed to attack and conduct surveillance. Iran’s opened two new missile production plants to make ground-to-air missiles, and its ambassador in Moscow said Russia intends to deliver S-300s to Iran, part of a deal brokered in 2007. We mentioned last year that Russia denied entering into such a deal.

It’s a vicious circle. Russia is using Iran as leverage against our country’s missile defense program in Eastern and Central Europe and START re-negotiations. In turn, the Iranian threat influences our missile defense strategy, and we increase deployment of missiles to the region, which angers Russia. And on and on.

Last week, Romania agreed to host missile interceptors (Standard Missile 3) as part of the president’s new missile defense plan. These missiles will be in place to defend against attacks from Iran, but once again, Russia believes their purpose is offensive. (UPI)

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the U.S. broke its promise to keep the Kremlin abreast of its missile defense developments in the region, and NATO representative Dmitri Rogozin asked, “How can we stay calm when alien military infrastructure, U.S. military infrastructure, has come to the Black Sea area?”

How will our missile defense plans in Romania affect negotiations for the START renewal? “It is impossible to talk seriously about a reduction of nuclear capabilities when a nuclear power is working to deploy defensive systems against nuclear warheads possessed by other countries,” Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said.

The missile interceptors will be deployed to Romania by 2015. Obviously, these and other developments will impact START negotiations, giving Russia an excuse to stall. Earlier this month, Poland announced that the U.S. will deploy Patriot missiles to Poland near the Russian border. In response, the former Soviet Union announced it would beef up its Baltic fleet. Signed in November, the deal between the U.S. and Poland also sends about 100 U.S. troops to Poland.

(Source for all quotes: UPI)

The Department of Defense (DOD) has released its Ballistic Missile Defense Review, conducted from March 2009 through January 2010. Download the 61-page report in PDF.

In assessing the ballistic missile threat around the world, DOD found the threat to be growing. As technology improves, missiles are becoming more accurate and farther-reaching. Ballistic missile systems are also more flexible and mobile. These trends are particularly disturbing as rogue states continue developing long-range weapons and nuclear capability. Last year, Iran test-fired the long-range Sajjil-2 missile, capable of reaching Israel and Southern Europe. Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) have a longer range than the Sajjil.

“There is some uncertainty about when and how this type of [ICBM] threat to the U.S. homeland will mature,” states the report, “but there is no uncertainty about the existence of regional threats. They are clear and present. The threat from short-range, medium-range, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, and IRBMs) in regions where the United States deploys forces and maintains security relationships is growing at a particularly rapid pace.”

DOD’s recommended priorities for the U.S. include testing new capabilities before deployment, testing under realistic operational conditions, and adapting as threats shift.

DOD contends that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense presently protects the U.S. against ICBM attacks from Iran and North Korea. To maintain this “advantageous position” as the threat grows, DOD says the U.S. will:

“Maintain readiness and continue to develop existing operational capabilities at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

“Complete the second field of 14 silos at Fort Greely to hedge against the possibility that additional deployments become necessary.

“Deploy new sensors in Europe to improve cueing for missiles launched at the United States by Iran or other potential adversaries in the Middle East.

“Invest in further development of the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) for future land-based deployment as the ICBM threat matures.

“Increase investments in sensors and early-intercept kill systems to help defeat missile defense countermeasures.

“Pursue a number of new GMD system enhancements, develop next generation missile defense capabilities, and advance other hedging strategies including continued development and assessment of a two-stage ground-based interceptor.”

Some experts question the report’s conclusions. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring believes the threat to the homeland could well be more imminent, which leaves the U.S. vulnerable to strategic surprises and risks the lives of millions of Americans. Our solutions and strategies should be more immediate rather than future oriented.