The Obama Administration is finally doing something that is likely to lessen the threat posed by an aggressive Iran. It is following the lead of the George W. Bush Administration and looking to expand missile defense capabilities in the Persian Gulf.
This step has many advantages for the United States and its allies in the region. Reflective of a “protect and defend” strategy, it offers a defensive solution that highlights the aggressive intent of Iran. The alternative is to give the Iranians a first strike option. It also does not require the global consensus that has been holding up the imposition of effective sanctions against Iran. This is not to say that this step should substitute for the diplomatic effort to impose sanctions on Iran, only augment it. Third, it provides direct reassurance to U.S. friends and allies in the region and strengthens security ties there. Fourth, it will lessen the pressure on friends that do not have nuclear weapons to seek them in the future, and also will lessen the likelihood that allies who may have nuclear weapons will be put in a circumstance where they would be compelled to use them.
This last point is critical. Last fall, The Heritage Foundation ran a series of exercises based on an abstract of Middle East regional setting, where all the nation-equivalent players were presumed to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The exercises demonstrated that pursuing a defensive option resulted in fewer nuclear weapons. On the other hand, a nuclear conflict broke out when the player equivalent to the United States simultaneously relied on nuclear retaliatory options, pursued a policy of nuclear disarmament, and chose not to pursue defensive options.
The Obama Administration, however, needs to close the circle on this productive step. The plan is to place the Patriot missile defense batteries in four Persian Gulf states and Standard Missile-3 missile defense interceptors on Navy ships in the Gulf. These steps will permit a defense against shorter-range missiles. The problem is that these current systems will not provide a defense to the United States or its friends against the longer-range missiles that Iran is seeking. This will permit Iran to focus on threatening the United States directly in order to drive a wedge between the United States and its friends and force the United States out of the region. It is an obvious window of vulnerability that the Obama Administration must close.
The Obama Administration can close this window of vulnerability by taking three steps. The first is to upgrade the sea-based missile defense system to make it capable of countering longer-range missiles. This sea-based system could also be used to protect the United States against an Iranian launch of a short-range missile off the coast that carries and electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) nuclear warhead. Such an upgrade program should be put on the fast track. The second step is to restore the larger number of Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors that are designed to counter long-range missiles that were proposed by President Bush. The Bush Administration proposed placing 44 such interceptors in Alaska and California and ten in Poland. President Obama, last year, made the unwise decision to scale back the number to be place in Alaska and California to 30 and cancelled the agreement with Poland. The most powerful step the Obama Administration could take to close this window of vulnerability is to announce that it will revive a proposal of the Reagan Administration and the George H.W. Bush Administration to put missile defense interceptors in space. This is a missile defense program that will serve to put the Iranians on the defensive.
Watch Heritage’s documentary on the necessity for missile defense: 33 Minutes.
It has been one year since the 2008 national election. During this period, the cause of missile defense has suffered serious setbacks. The overall budget for missile defense for this fiscal year will be $1.6 billion less than the amount allocated in fiscal year 2009. The number of fielded long-range defense interceptors in Alaska and California will be 30, as opposed to 44. The Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program for countering decoys and countermeasures designed to overwhelm or confuse the defense has been terminated. The Airborne Laser (ABL) program has been curtailed. The boost-phased interceptor program, called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) has been terminated. Finally, the program to field ground-based interceptors for countering long-range missile in Europe has been canceled.
As bad as the past year has been for missile defense, the future appears even bleaker. The Obama Administration is prepared to subordinate missile defense to its arms control agenda, most particularly President Obama’s desire to achieve global nuclear disarmament. It is also pitting one missile defense program against another, which is likely represents a serial approach to killing most of these programs.
Finally, the Obama Administration is on the cusp of reducing the overall defense budget in fiscal year 2011 in ways that will hit the research and development and procurement accounts particularly hard. These are the accounts that fund the bulk of the missile defense program. Thus, additional funding and programmatic cuts to missile defense are quite likely. Finally, the Obama Administration is likely to justify these reductions in a missile defense policy review that is a part of the broader Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The result is that the American people and forces in the field, as well as America’s allies, will be left vulnerable to missile attack. This is a vulnerability the American people should demand that the government close. After all, the first duty of the federal government is to defend the American people.