horse of george

Obama opts out of East European missile defense - does that bother me? Don't think so but possibly. It was supposed to protect against Iran but that was never really a practical solution and what they're proposing instead, a more variegated and extended shield, seems to make more sense, at least from what we know of it - and so in that sense I'm not bothered. Problem is, the East European shield was never about Iran but rather directed towards Russia which is why Moscow was so pissed by it - pulling back from that with the rather weak excuse that they hope this makes Russia more amenable viz Iran's nukes seems to me a gesture fraught with potential complications. So I'm a little hot and cold with this one - I suppose if they'd set it up so it seemed less like capitulation I could get on board - still, if Moscow stiffs them on Iran despite the gesture, which is likely, America will look compromised, no? even assuming the new plans for missile defense are more sensible. They can't possibly think that should Russia refuse to play ball on Iran after such a nice gesture that they will be the ones compromised? I've read some comments that seem to buy into that line of thinking - I think it's crazy - countries act in their own interests, Russia will be a help here only if they see it's to their advantage to be of help, not from contemplating abstract notions of fair play or right and wrong. As far as I'm concerned all countries whose power relies on political systems that are at odds with western styled democracy see an advantage in America being diminished - not destroyed or precipitously undone because they're too important viz economic stability - but certainly diminished. Russia - or should we just say Putin? - will act according to that principle, not out of a sense of owing Obama one or a fear of looking bad in the eyes of progressive democracies.

Still, the real threat from Iran is not a nuclear attack on Europe or over Europe and into the US but rather by offering a nuclear deterrent against Israel and America as well as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to its friends in Iraq, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah and thereby extending and emboldening its dreams of hegemony in the region. If the new missile defense plan mitigates that influence more effectively then an apparent capitulation to Russia may matter less - but logically, if what I've just described is the case, then they already think Russia is not going help with Iran, Iran is going to develop nukes and Israel will not be interceding in any way - which makes this a smart play? Or a huge gamble? - in the sense that Russia gets to look appeased while Iran's plans are only marginally degraded.

From Jerusalem Post:

"We actually are better able to deal with a changed situation, in which the intelligence assessments are wrong, with the new architecture than we were with the old one," Gates told reporters.

The new assessment asserts Iran is unlikely to have a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile until 2015 to 2020, a US government official familiar with the report told The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the report remains classified...

Fingar, who spearheaded the controversial 2007 national intelligence estimate that disclosed Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design work in 2003, was not privy to the new intelligence. But he said Iran may be working on short-range missiles because they are easier to build than large, long-range missiles, and lessons learned in their development can be applied to larger missiles.

He also said Iran may not be aggressively pursuing an ICBM because it has discerned its most likely adversaries are in the region, so shorter missiles have more immediate utility for offensive attacks or deterrence.

The new Obama plan would deploy systems designed to shoot down short- and medium-range missiles, with construction in phases to begin around 2011. Systems to counter longer-range missiles would be in place around 2020.