THE RADICAL SPRINT TOWARD ARMAGEDDON

Peter Huessy

The next American President will face the continued threat from Iranian ballistic missiles and their associated nuclear program. Americans must be careful that the next President not destroy current efforts to protect both Europe and the United States from such threats, which would undermine future associated diplomacy undertaken to change the course of Iranian behavior in the Middle East and beyond.

Consider: Senator Obama has called for the elimination of billions in missile defense spending; his close advisers have said $8 billion or a cut of 80% is in order; his colleague Senator Schumer has called for the US to stop deploying interceptors in Europe in return for Russian support of economic sanctions against Iran; an Obama adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has actively pushed the Polish government, in whose country the interceptors would be deployed, to stonewall any deployment during the remaining months of the Bush administration; and European missile defense opponents, including past Clinton administration officials, have negotiated with Greenpeace on how to stop these deployments.

Whether economic sanctions would bring down the Iranian mullahs is unclear. And while Senator Schumer says we could pay Russia $3 billion a year to make up for its loss of Iranian trade, who else would line-up for such bribes? He assumes China will join the effort as well, but without mention of what price tag that entails. But even if such a deal is plausible, in the meantime, Iranian ballistic missiles, already modernized and deployed, continue to threaten US interests. Why give up these defenses?

This leads us back to the Presidential race. To negotiate with an adversary one must carefully “set the table” to acquire leverage with which to secure the kind of deal that would protect US security. But the Iranian regime has laid out no “deal” in which such US security concerns would be met. Their stance has echoed that of North Korea—guarantee Pyongyang the unfettered right to take over the South and they will “think about” giving up their nuclear arms. So too Tehran: their nuclear weapons once mated with their ballistic missiles give them the leverage to provide them top-cover for their terrorist activities. Eliminating one key factor in defending the West—missile defenses---would be utter folly.

Senator Schumer appears of two minds on this. He says the US should “cease building ineffective” missile defenses—without explaining why such “ineffective” defenses would drive Prime Minister Putin of Russia to “apoplexy”. Then he says—correctly-- missile defenses “strengthen the relationship between Eastern Europe and NATO, with real troops and equipment on the ground. It mocks Mr. Putin’s dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe.”










To sweeten things, Schumer recommends we make Russia a full partner in the Caspian region. This is simply an ill-thought recipe to give Russian cooks even more control over critical oil supplies and with it the leverage that entails. And his further claim that Iranian missile threats are “remote and hypothetical” is also baseless—Iranian missile are routinely paraded through the streets of Tehran accompanied by huge banners proclaiming “America Can Do Nothing!”

In a briefing hosted by Congressmen Lamborn of Colorado and Franks of Arizona and the House Missile Defense Caucus for members of Congress and defense experts on June 12, followed by an NDUF and NDIA sponsored event on the 13th, former Israel Ministry of Defense official Dr. Uzi Rubin revealed that Iran is "sprinting toward deployments of five separate ballistic missiles as well as a nuclear weapons capability."

He noted such rockets now reach to 4000 kilometers, which puts all of Europe, including London, in range. He further warned that when taken into account, the Iranian rocket and nuclear weapons programs represent a threat to civilization as serious as any other in the past 100 years, including the rise of the Communists in Russia in 1917 and the accession to power in Germany of the Nazi leader Adolph Hitler. He warned: "This is a very radical regime".

Dr. Rubin further noted the advances now seen in Iranian rockets to where they have jumped ahead of old Scud technologies and moved on to solid rocket fuels and 2-3 part staging. Dr. Rubin explained that it is now only a matter of engineering until such time as Iran masters the capability to land weapons anywhere on earth.

Thus the idea as proposed by Senator Schumer that Russia could cooperate in ending such missile threats is a fine idea—until we remind ourselves they themselves are furnishing some of the missile technology to Iran by transfers through North Korea. And it is not a coincidence that the US and its partners in the 90-nation strong Proliferation Security Initiative have repeatedly interdicted missile technology bound for Iran.

The right course would be for the US to pursue both a world-wide economic strategy against the mullahs. We should especially consider a policy of full divestment which has now been made much more viable by the emergence of “terror free” investment vehicles pioneered by former Reagan administration official Roger Robinson. A layered and European-wide missile defense deployment---what we are in fact now pursuing must remain a high priority.

And as General Trey Obering, the director of the Missile Defense Agency has recently pointed out: missile defense systems have been successful in 34 of the past 42 intercept tests since 2001, an 80% success rate, and 14 of 15 since 2005. The planned missile defense deployments have been unanimously endorsed by all 26 NATO nations as they have recognized the substantial contribution such military hardware offers for their protection. As the director wrote recently, “If diplomacy, arms control and deterrence fails, missile defense is the option left to protect our nation, our allies and forces”. Eliminating this tool from the next President’s diplomatic toolkit would hardly help “prepare the geostrategic landscape” in dealing with the terror agents in Tehran, Syria and elsewhere. It would, on the contrary, embolden them and their murderous ways.

###

Peter R. Huessy is currently the president of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense and national security consulting business. In addition to writing for OpinionEditorials.com, he is also a guest lecturer, appearing at such fine institutions as the School of Advanced International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University, The Institute of World Politics, and The National War College. Mr. Huessy has spent his career working in government organizations and committees, such as the United Nations, The Environmental Fund, Department of the Interior, and the National Defense University Foundation.

geostrategicanalysis@comcast.net