Last week, Vice President Joe Biden visited Poland and the Czech Republic, the first such visit to the region by a high-level official since the President Barack Obama dropped plans to deploy missile defense shields to those countries. The Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes commented on the new missile defense shield plan proposed by the administration.
“In pulling the plug on the Bush missile-defense plan in Eastern Europe last month,” Brookes writes in the New York Post, “the White House came up with a new architecture based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat…The Pentagon now insists Iran is moving faster on its short- and medium-range ballistic-missile programs than on its long-range ICBM effort, against which the Czech and Polish sites were aimed. (Of course, many experts think progress in one missile program supports another.)”
The new plan may protect Europe, but what about the Iranian threat to the U.S. and Israel? Land-based SM-3 missiles, designed to protect us and our ally, are in development. The target date for completion is 2020, but Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.
“[T]he Obama administration thinks that if the Iranian ICBM comes online before the land-based SM-3s are developed and in place, the West Coast, Bush-era missile-defense sites give us some breathing room…Not really.”
Brookes notes that the “West Coast” system was created to protect us from North Korea, not Iran. Sites that would protect us from Iran (in Alaska and California) may not be adequate, especially since the administration reduced interceptors at those sites.
“That means there’s a gap in our defenses against an Iranian ICBM strike until the land-based SM-3s are operational, which, by the way, will almost certainly face funding and engineering-development challenges.”
Other problems with the new plan are cost, efficiency, and concerns that Russia will once again “negotiate” with the U.S. to curb development of another weapon.
“It’s…a good time to remind ourselves that the purpose of defense is to be technologically ahead of the threat, not behind it — which is where we’ll be if we’re not careful,” Brookes writes.
The Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes writes about President Obama’s rejection of missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic that would protect the region from Iranian attacks, in the face of Russia’s opposition. (Source)
Brookes makes a very important point that should be discussed more often that it is (emphasis added):
“Not only does this make us look weak by giving in to the Russian demand, there’s also the delicious irony that Moscow is largely responsible for the Iran problem today, dating back to help the Kremlin gave the mullahs in the 1990s.”
Not only that, but Russia has refused to issue tougher sanctions against Iran in exchange for our dropping the missile shield plans, yet Obama’s ready to drop them anyway. Why? Obama wants to meet with Iran to discuss its nuclear program, but as Brookes points out, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he wouldn’t submit to demands over his program or buckle under tougher sanctions. Brookes adds:
“Nor has Tehran paused its nuclear/ballistic-missile work since Obama took office, despite White House attempts to extend a hand of friendship to the Islamic regime…In fact, Israel believes Iran will have a bomb within one to two years – and the U.S. Air Force assesses Tehran could have an ICBM that can reach the United States by 2015.”
The word why pops up frequently when discussing Obama’s missile defense strategy, which seems counterintuitive. Why, for instance, is he foregoing “our best short-term defense” to placate the former Soviet Union and giving rogue states the benefit of the doubt?
The Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes says the Obama administration is changing its tune on missile defense as a result of North Korea’s recent missile launches: An excerpt:
“The Obama administration is reacting to the anticipated launch of another North Korean long-range ballistic missile, expected to fly over the Pacific toward Hawaii sometime soon, by putting missile defense on alert…That’s a big change from last time.
“Back in April, in advance of North Korea’s last missile test, the administration pretty much pooh-poohed the threat posed by the Taepo Dong launch, characterizing Pyongyang’s saber-rattling as bluster.
“Indeed, from all outward indications, Team Obama did just about nothing but bloviate to defend US territory and interests from the missile that, by almost all accounts, has the potential to reach the western United States.”
Brookes notes that Obama’s “charm offensive” against North Korea hasn’t worked, so the administration apparently decided to toughen its stance. More important, missile defense is effective, and in light of North Korea’s bold talk and actions, shoring up our missile defense will keep us from appearing weak on national security.
“The good news is the Bush administration kept its promise to develop and deploy missile defense to protect us against an expanding nuke and missile threat,” Brookes writes. “Otherwise, we’d now be completely vulnerable to North Korean missiles.”
Heritage Analyst Peter Brookes discusses Iran’s missile launch on Fox News. Brookes is a Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs and the Chung-Ju Yung Fellow for Policy Studies.
Heritage Analyst Peter Brooke’s talks about North Korea’s upcoming missile launch on Fox News. Peter Brookes is a National Security Affairs Senior Fellow and Chung Ju-Yung Fellow for Policy Studies in the Asian Studies Center.
Brookes notes that a mere 10 years ago, there were just six nuclear weapons states. Now there are nine. A generation ago, nine countries had ballistic missiles. In 2009, almost 30 countries possess these weapons. The nuclear weapons increases may seem insignificant, but consider that developing and maintaining our own strong missile defense system “remains a controversial idea.” Unbelievable? You better believe it.
The missile defense system development that began under George Bush has yet to be completed. With a new president in the White House who so far has demonstrated lukewarm support for missile defense, the situation is precarious. Powerhouses like Russia and China have weapons, as well as rogue states like Iran and North Korea. The time to act is now.
An excerpt of the article:
“Among present proliferation problems, Iran may be the worst, due to its enmity toward the United States, sponsorship of terrorism, involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and regional power ambitions.
“Tehran insists its burgeoning nuclear program is for peaceful power generation, designed to augment Iran’s significant oil and natural gas reserves. (Iran has the world’s third-largest oil and second-largest natural gas reserves.)
“But an avalanche of evidence tells a different story. Iran is involved in a nuclear weapons program that may become operational this year, according to a growing chorus of experts, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ supposed nuclear watchdog.”
The article includes sidebars on the history of missile defense (beginning in the 1940s) and how a ballistic missile defense system works. It’s well worth the read. Download the six-page article (PDF).
Join Peter Brookes at noon on December 3, at the Heritage Foundation, where he’ll host an event called “Missile Defense in Europe: The Way Forward.”
Experts Sally McNamara, Ilan Berman, and Mario Loyola will discuss the present and future state of missile defense, including the growing threat of Iran and President-Elect Barack Obama’s lukewarm reception to building missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic.
On Thursday, the Heritage Foundation will hold an event titled, Easing Asian Anxiety: Missiles, WMD and Missile Defense. A panel of experts will discuss, among other things, challenges facing the U.S. concerning China’s missile modernization and production.
Host Peter Brookes joins experts like Bruce Klingner, Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia at Heritage, and James Carter, Director of the Advanced and International Sea-Based Missile Defense Programs at the Lockheed Martin Corporation, to talk about missile defense and such recent events as the State Department’s decision to remove North Korea from the terrorist sponsors list.
The event is scheduled to run from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. in the Heritage Foundation’s Lehrman Auditorium. You may RSVP here.
Brookes notes that more countries are developing nuclear weapons. While the Bush administration’s efforts to develop sea- and land-based missile defense systems are laudable, the development must continue with the next president and Congress. With news of a nuclear smuggling ring and nuclear weapons designs in the hands of our enemies, national security is more important than ever.
Iran probably is “the most troubling” country that is developing a nuclear program, despite its claims of “peaceful power generation.” Iran sponsors terrorism and seeks power in the Middle East, and Russia, which has assisted Iran with a nuclear reactor, has an interest in making sure the balance of world power shifts eastward. Add China to the mix, and the U.S. has cause for serious concern.
No treaty bans the proliferation of ballistic missiles, so the U.S. is wise to take defensive measures to prevent destruction and, possibly, annihilation. These developing Cold War II scenarios around the world are discouraging, but as Brookes notes, every country has a right to self-defense. And self-defense involves building missiles. It’s a sort of Catch-22: the U.S. must develop a strong defensive system to protect itself and to symbolize strength. But developing such a system may send signals to our enemies that we’re on the offensive.
Brookes concludes: “Cold War-like mutually assured destruction or massive retaliation should not be the only options for policymakers.”
I’m reminded of the movie “WarGames.” The computer Joshua observes after playing all scenarios in the game Global Thermonuclear War: “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?”
The Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes appeared on FOX News recently to talk about Russia selling its surface-to-air missile system to Iran, despite U.S. opposition to such sales. Iran claims to be acquiring the system to protect itself from an attack by Israel.
We noted earlier that Iran claimed it would retaliate against Israel by deploying Shahab-3 missiles, long-range weapons capable of reaching the country. According to Israel, Iran could have these advanced weapons by the end of the year.
Last week, Vice President Joe Biden visited Poland and the Czech Republic, the first such visit to the region by a high-level official since the President Barack Obama dropped plans to deploy missile defense shields to those countries. The Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes commented on the new missile defense shield plan proposed by the administration.
The Heritage Foundation’s