Indefensible missile defense
Mostly off-topic, but that's one of the benefits of a blog: We can write whatever we want!
The big news in Washington today is the Obama administration's decision to kill off the Bush-era Eastern European missile defense system. Predictable criticism has ensued: Obama is "capitulating to Putin," "making us less safe," "throwing our allies under the bus," etc. (John Bolton thinks this was the wrong decision, which means I absolutely support it.)
Here's my gripe: Nobody can define exactly what threat the U.S. was protecting its allies against. Is Russia secretly planning to invade Poland? Is Belarus plotting an empire?
Supporters say the missile shield was a needed defense against "rogue states," which inevitably means Iran. The usual suspects are already warning that Obama's decision will embolden the mullahs.
Again, I ask: embolden them to do... what? The Iranian regime is not planning to nuke Estonia. And even if it wanted to, it couldn't. Iran's missiles currently have a maximum range of about 2,000km -- enough to get them to Romania or the Ukraine, but no further. (It also doesn't have nuclear weapons, but that's another story.)
Given that, what's the point of placing missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic? If the U.S. is really committed to defending against an Iranian threat, wouldn't it make far more sense to put them in, say, Turkey?
This program was championed by Cold Warriors who think Russia is always on the brink of restoring the USSR. I'm glad Obama ended it and brought a dose of realism back to U.S. foreign policy.
For updates throughout the day, follow us on 
Twitter, 
Facebook or 
RSS!
Categories: Obama Administration, Proliferation, War and Terrorism
Tags: Barack Obama, Iranian nuclear program, missile defense
No Comments
Post a Comment