Don't Criticize the President, He Knows Better
The small glimpse of hope of potential Russian-US cooperation on curtailing Iran’s nuclear plans disappeared after an unsuccessful meeting between Russia and the US. ++ Obama stated that Russia would not determine America’s missile defense plans. ++ Although a setback, the statement is not without purpose; if not said Russia would have achieved its aim of creating a wedge between the US and NATO allies. ++ For talks to be productive, Russia should step up and consider compromise rather than simply ask the US to “capitulate.”
Fri, Mar 6th 2009, 04:12
Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (207)
The Russian and American remarks do not seem to add up. The real issue would at first seem to be Russian dislike of any major armaments provided by the U.S. being that close to their border. But some issues are murky: (1) The Russians should be aware of the defensive nature of these weapons and the unlikelihood that they could pick off enough of a sustained missile attack by Russia to matter. (2) The Russians should be happy, for geo-political reason if nothing more major, to have these weapons removed. Instead, Russia seems to have its eyes on good relations with Iran and with driving wedges between the West and former members of the Soviet Union.
The first real-world function of defensive missile systems must be to create doubt in Iran’s mind whether a missile attack one any place in Europe could have a paralyzing effect. Surely the Iranian leaders know that nearly instant retaliation would follow any launch of offensive missiles determined to have originated from their launch sites. The second function would be to provide the best possible defense against an actual launch.
One way that Iranian missiles could have a real effect would be as threats to dissuade European nations from carrying out some operation. It is unlikely that the presence of defensive missiles would caution Iran against threatening a strike. Their presence would make European nations somewhat more likely the carry out an operation despite such a threat. So in the long run the missiles might have a destabilizing influence. Such a destabilizing influence could work to Russia’s advantage.
The greatest danger is probably that conflicts could escalate too rapidly to be controlled. A defensive missile system probably increases the inertia of the situation, i.e., slows changes down. A better U.S. - Russian relation could also act as a moderating factor. Are there ways to educate the ruling factions in Iran regarding the dangers of a hair-triggered war department? Are there other moderating factors that might be strengthened?