Changes in missile defense system for Eastern Europe - a Perspective

The latest strategic move by US to replace the missile defense system planned for eastern europe, with a more cost-effective, sea-based system intended to defend against short and medium range missiles launched from Iran, has caught many by surprise. The rationale given by Robert Gates(Def Secy) to back this decision is that their intelligence suggests that the long-range missile threat from Iran is negligible, and not as advanced as feared earlier in the Bush era. Thus the new version provides a more appropriate defensive response in a cost effective fashion.

This is where we start peeling off the rhetoric. In my opinion, although the missile defense system was supposed to have been inititated to counter Iran, there is a greater benefit it provides to US, in terms of securing a base right next to Russia, and provide a logistical support in the strategic eastern europe region, and effectively keeping the Russians on the defensive.

Obama's foreign policy, of what we have seen so far, seems to be placing a much bigger focus on diplomacy, and he started it with calls for greater alignment with the muslim world, talks with Iran as well as annouce the closure of Guantanamo, and getting the Attorney General to lead a probe against alleged malpractices done by the CIA. Clearly, he is seeking to improve the American image, by distancing his administration from the Bush one, and giving such signals to the world. Only a closer look would reveal that in terms of foreign policy, nothing has truly changed from the previous administration, but such is the nature of subterfuge that policymakers have to make use of, to mould public opinion, the imperative for any ruler.

In this context of Obama's foreign policy so far, we can analyze the ramifications of this move. On the surface, it is a clear call to the Russians for an era of greater reconciliation, and this missile strategy change, was also followed quickly by a call by NATO Secy Gen to the Russians for greater involvement and cooperation with NATO. This begs the question, what do the Americans hope in return for this allowance. The obvious would be greater support for a unilateral action against Iran, as Russia has clearly aligned itself with Iran over the matter.

Obvious constraints usually do not work, and Russia is not in a position to change its stand on Iran. However, this makes the US look conciliatory and consensus seeking in the eyes of the key NATO allies, notably Germany and France. Support of Germany and France is getting more and more important for US, especially in Afghanistan where it is fighting a losing battle. Most of developed Europe has issues with Islam extremism, as they are on the hit list themselves, and I suspect, their leadership would like to provide greater support to the Americans in this War on Terror, as it serves their self interest as well. Muslim immigration is one of the biggest challenges facing developed Europe, and I think they have started formulating appropriate responses to counter this.( Cue Sarkozy and his recent aggression against institutionalized signs of Islam, some other notable european nations like the scandinavians, Dutch and UK also keep dropping feelers pointing to the same sentiment). With this move, I feel this just might herald the return of NATO to global significance, and redeem their image, after the disastrous war in Georgia last year.

Thus to summarize, this move is based on providing the allies in Europe with talking points to tone down the anti americanism reflected in european public opinion, and returning to the american fold as key allies in the War on Terror, a war which is critical for the entire western world (not just US), to retain its cultural hegemony on the world. Additionally it provides relief for the European nations with a more relaxed Russia, along with the cost savings it provides to US ( especially in these days).