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.