Opinion
A MIX OF IDEAS
Our Missile Defense Strategy
I
n June, President Obama traveled to
Cairo and, before an Egyptian audi-
ence and with millions of Arabs and
Muslims listening, made a simple, power-
ful declaration: "America's strong bonds
with Israel are well known:' the president
said. "This bond is unbreakable."
And he has backed that commitment
with strong actions, defending Israel's
right to defend herself and confronting
the regional threats to Israel's security.
He has taken action to stop the one-sided
Goldstone report from being used to dis-
credit Israel at the United Nations. And
at this moment, U.S. troops are on Israeli
soil, conducting a major missile-defense
exercise designed to sharpen our joint
response to the threat of Iranian missiles.
The Juniper Cobra exercise, which will test
the compatibility of advanced U.S. missile
defense systems such as Terminal High
Altitude Air Defense, Aegis and Patriot
PAC III with Israeli systems such as Arrow
II, is the most robust test yet of our ability
to work together with our Israeli allies to
thwart regional missile threats, especially
the threat from Iran.
The president's recent decision to
revamp our missile defenses in Europe
is another major step in addressing the
Iranian missile threat. If we succeed in
forcing Iran to give up its nuclear ambi-
tions without the use of force, it will be in
part because of this major shift in strategy
— a shift Israel's leaders have praised as a
significant boost to their nation's security.
The Bush Mantra
The Bush administration had estab-
lished a missile defense strategy aimed at
defending against a potential long-range
Iranian missile threat to the continental
United States. The plan was to locate
anti-missile interceptors for our system in
Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic.
But there were flaws in this strategy.
The long-range missiles it was designed to
counter don't exist in the Iranian arsenal
today and may never exist. The
effective strategy, we increase
threat that is here and now is
the pressure on the Iranians by
Iran's ability to launch short- and
blunting the threat from their
medium-range missiles that
missiles against Europe and
could reach Europe and Israel.
Israel.
Because Iran does not have
the long-range missiles that the
The Russian
Poland-based interceptors were
Connection
designed to defeat, the Bush
In addition to giving us supe-
administration strategy would
rior defense against the Iranian
have been least effective against
threat, this strategy shift comes
the greatest existing Iranian
with an important bonus: It
threat — short- and medium-
holds the possibility of bring-
range missiles.
ing Russia into an anti-Iranian
The strategy shift by
missile defense strategy.
President Obama will first put our missile
Russia felt threatened by the previous
defenses aboard Aegis ships in the Aegean plan to deploy missile defense facilities
and Mediterranean seas, guided by radars
in Poland and the Czech Republic. They
closer to Iran, and then on land-based
believed the system was aimed at them,
launchers.
weakening their ability to deter an attack
Our military leaders not only supported against Russian territory. Our assurances
this change in strategy — they strongly
to the contrary didn't satisfy them.
recommended it unanimously. Gen. James
But Russia's positive response to our new
Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint
strategy may bring a real increase in our
Chiefs of Staff, recently testified before the
missile defense capability. Two Russian
Senate Armed Services Committee, which
radars may now become a valuable part of
I chair. He told us the Joint Chiefs and
a U.S.-NATO missile defense system aimed
our regional military commanders had
at nullifying Iran's missile threat.
studied the issue carefully and "believe
We are already discussing this possibil-
this is the right way to go." And Lt. Gen.
ity with the Russians. Linking those two
Patrick O'Reilly, the director of the Missile Russian radars to NATO's missile defense
Defense Agency, told my committee, "This
system would do more than provide a
new proposal is a more powerful missile
valuable addition to our defenses. It would
defense of NATO."
represent a powerful message to Iran and
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
a real setback to Iran's search for power in
and other administration officials have
the region. It could improve our chances
made clear, with this strategy we send a
of thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions
clear signal to Iran. "We have said from
diplomatically by demonstrating to Iran a
the very beginning that missile defense in unity of purpose among the United States,
Europe was about Iran and it was about
Europe and Russia. And if we link Israeli
their missile capacity," Secretary Clinton
missile defenses into that system, it would
said recently. And Ellen Tauscher, the
provide additional important capability.
undersecretary of state for arms control,
While the press reported some criti-
has pointed out that the greater capabil-
cal early response from some Polish and
ity of our new approach "will complicate
Czech leaders, the official government
any Iranian calculus to use, or threaten
responses a few days later, once the facts
to use, its ballistic missiles as coercive
were known, were positive. Polish Foreign
weapons." In short, with this new, more
Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said the new
strategy is "a significant reinforcement
of Poland's defense potential." Czech
President Vaclav Klaus said he "fully
accepts" the new approach.
NATO understood and applauded the
new Obama strategy: NATO Secretary
General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called
the new plan "a positive step" that "laid out
a roadmap for deploying missile defense
in a realistic timeframe with proven
technology against a visible threat?' Israel
saw the advantages of our shift in strat-
egy aimed at weakening their existential
threat — Iran. Israeli officials welcomed
the increased pressure on Iran that the
missile defense shift accomplished. As
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said,
"The new approach really provides more
flexibility and, in a relatively short time, a
much more effective, economical way to
deal effectively with the challenge of mis-
siles from Iran."
The Wrong Way
While our European allies and Israel
understood the positive implications for
our security and theirs, Republicans here
in the United States, seemingly automati-
cally, attacked the Obama decision. The
Republican leader in the House, Rep. John
Boehner, said the shift would "empower
Russia." His deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor,
warned of "severe consequences" for our
security from the shift.
These attacks are erroneous — and
worse. They are seriously misguided.
The Obama strategy has potential to
profoundly shift in our direction the
geopolitical balance between Iran and
the international community. It provides
a more effective missile defense for our
European allies and strong support for
Israel in her struggle to address the
Iranian threat against her. It deserves
bipartisan support here at home. fl
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., is chairman of the U.S.
Senate Armed Services Committee
November Dates from page 39
while the Jewish population, while not
completely satisfied, still embraced it.
The United Nations, established in
1945 immediately following World War II,
had 51 member states during its incep-
tion, compared to the 192 it has today;
in 1947, when the vote occurred, it had
57 member states. Of this tally were a
majority of 33 yes votes, 13 no votes, 10
abstentions and one country, Siam, absent.
Among the member states that voted for
40
November 5 • 2009
the resolution were: America, Uruguay,
Australia, Ecuador, Iceland, Ukraine,
the Soviet Union, Belgium, Bolivia,
Brazil, Belarus, Guatemala, South Africa,
Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Haiti,
Holland, Venezuela, Panama, Paraguay,
Peru, Poland, France Czechoslovakia,
Costa Rica and Luxemburg. Among the
member states opposing the resolution
were Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, Lebanon
and Pakistan. Among the abstentions was
Britain, which still ruled the land and
wanted to remain objective, as well as
Argentina, Mexico and China.
In viewing the votes, consider that vot-
ing took place only a couple of years fol-
lowing the Holocaust; 6 million Jews were
among the 11 million people murdered by
Nazi Germany. So the Jewish people still
had the sympathy of much of the world.
I often contemplate the question of
whether this vote in favor of a Jewish
state would be possible in our day and
age. Of course, we'll never know for sure.
But with a number of 192 member states,
many inherently opposed to a Jewish sov-
ereign entity in the region, and when the
Holocaust is a distant history at best and
a subject of denial at worst, I doubt it very
much. r7
Rachel Kapen is a West Bloomfield resident.
The Israeli native arrived in America in 1962.