Obama to Russia: Stop Iran and we’ll scrap missile defense in Europe
posted at 11:54 am on July 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Many of us worried that Barack Obama would give away missile defense in Eastern Europe for nothing at all, save a photo op with Vladimir Putin and a chance to proclaim peace in our time. After signing a meaningless warhead-reduction treaty with Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, though, Obama remained firm on missile defense. He told a graduating class from Moscow’s New Economic School that if Russia stopped Iran from building nuclear weapons, we’d rethink the need for the missile defense system:
President Obama today offered to scrap plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe if Russia helped to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb. …
Russia strongly opposes US plans to site the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, which Washington says is necessary to defend against a surprise attack from Iran. Mr Obama made clear that he was willing to strike a deal with the Kremlin.
“I know Russia opposes the planned configuration for missile defence in Europe . . . I have made it clear that this system is directed at preventing a potential attack from Iran and has nothing to do with Russia,” Mr Obama said in a speech to students graduating from Moscow’s New Economic School.
“I want us to work together on a missile defence architecture that makes us all safer. But if the threat from Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes is eliminated, the driving force for missile defence in Europe will be eliminated. That is in our mutual interest.”
That would not be a bad trade. Russia has paid lip service to non-proliferation in Iran, but has also helped build Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure. Russia has routinely blocked tougher sanctions against the mullahs at the UN Security Council, along with China, and has made it almost impossible for the West to gain enough leverage to stop the Iranian bomb. Russia has returned to the Great Game in that region, a play for power interrupted only in name by the communist era in Moscow.
Note how Obama put the Russians in a corner, rhetorically speaking, by the way he put this. Obama made the trade contingent on the end of Iranian nukes, not just a switch in the Security Council on Russia’s part alone. To the extent that the UNSC can do anything at all now to stop the mullahs from getting nukes — and that window has almost surely passed — Russia would also have to get China to stop protecting Iran with its veto and show that it succeeded in halting the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. Not just the nuclear program, either, but also the ballistic missiles.
It’s another way of saying that missile defense in eastern Europe won’t be disappearing any time soon. And that’s a surprisingly good show from a President who’s shown more appeasement than spine thus far in his administration.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Typical, give away protection for our allies for an unverifiable empty promise. BRILLIANT!
HoustonRight on July 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Bush offered this time and time again, and the Russians said NFW; that the two things were not connected and couldn’t be. Where’s the previous examples?
scottm on July 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM
He probably mis-spoke. Gibbs will tell us what he really meant to say later.
Which is my way of saying, good job, finally.
myrenovations on July 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM
So how does Bush shoes fit , Obama?
the_nile on July 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Putin must have chest cramps from laughing so hard.
Fletch54 on July 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Well, we can always put the missile defenses in place upon discovery of Iran’s capabilities. I don’t see a downside to this.
JohnJ on July 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Ogabe said “helped to stop” but not a requirement that the effort actually succeed.
Russia will make a show of pressuring Iran, meanwhile Ogabe will work with all possible haste to dismantle any existing missile facilities and stop deployment of new systems.
Then, surprise, Russia says that despite all its best efforts, Iran now has the bomb. “Oh well” says Ogabe, “we tried.”
Bishop on July 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Nice trade-off.
Let’s see if the Russians accept, and keep their word if they do.
As for Obama, even a broken clock is right twice a day…he’s at least trying to do something right.
It feels kinda ookie to give The One kudos…
JetBoy on July 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Russia doesn’t have to do anything. Iran is close enough to end game all they have to do is watch the show and give the mullahs a little boost. Putin knows we’re on the ropes and he also knows Iran won’t stop anyway. all they need is time and Barry is willing to give it to them.
a capella on July 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Our “friends” are probably wondering what else Obama has that’s “negotiable”. Last thing they probably want to hear from Barry is that “I’m behind you 110%”
GarandFan on July 9, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Rove, you magnificent bastard, you! How’d you get 0bama to mimic Bush?
Torch on July 9, 2009 at 12:02 PM
If only he was more pragmatic on the economy
So ideological on that
blatantblue on July 9, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Russia to Obama: you first.
hicsuget on July 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Expiration date?
anglee99 on July 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Since this kind of a decision effects so many nations, how does this arrogant eunuch think he has such ultimate authority to dictate to the rest of the world what he personally thinks is best? This type of god-like arrogance is bordering on insanity. Makes liberalism look more like a progressive mental disorder every day. 2010 cannot get here fast enough.
volsense on July 9, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Reset.
BuckeyeSam on July 9, 2009 at 12:04 PM
“That would not be a bad trade. Russia has paid lip service to non-proliferation in Iran, but has also helped build Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure. Russia has routinely blocked tougher sanctions against the mullahs at the UN Security Council, along with China, and has made it almost impossible for the West to gain enough leverage to stop the Iranian bomb. Russia has returned to the Great Game in that region, a play for power interrupted only in name by the communist era in Moscow.”
Trust Russia now…do we Ed?
LtE126 on July 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM
I’m sure the Russian retort to this will be “Why stop Iran? You’re junking missile defense across the globe anyway.”
teke184 on July 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM
That’s what I’m thinking.
jencab on July 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Let’s face it. People will not really start rethinking all this stuff until a city lies in smoldering ruins from a nuke. Then and only then will looter liberals start to think, albeit only SOME of them. When a big U.S. city gets hit it will be mainly liberals who die like the trade center attack. Libs only “got it” for a few hours back in 2001.
Mojave Mark on July 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Wow.
It doesn’t matter; it’ll never happen. He’s telling Russia to go pound sand on European missile defense until Russia lives up to its rhetoric and actually stops Iran — something it’ll never do.
amerpundit on July 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM
I hope Obama checked his wallet before her left Moscow.
RobCon on July 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM
The adults are in charge, so I’m told.
LimeyGeek on July 9, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Well, Poland’s not going to be happy–and a few others in E. Europe. Germany may not even be happy with this. And as others have said, Russian support can be covert. This leaves us in the position of having to trust Russia and Iran, while exposing our E. European allies to Russian threats. It also removes legitimacy for Israel to take out Iran’s nukes, if publicly, Iran’s nukes don’t exist.
To make this work, Iran must open itself to full US gov’t inspection of its nuclear facilities. (Can we still have faith in US inspectors working for Ogabe admin.?)
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM
I’m disappointed with Ed and you commenters. You shouldn’t find anything good in what Obama does. We are against the country and therefore always against him. Don’t forget we dislike him because we are racists. That’s what the trolls, Waxman and other libs tell us. We must remain consistant./sarc
shick on July 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM
It’s basically rebranding the Bush doctrine and trying to take credit for it. He’s been rebranding lot’s of Bush’s policies since day 1. Especially the one’s he criticized President Bush for doing while campaigning.
Guardian on July 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Russia has absolutely no control over Iran whatsoever. Period. Where did this idiotic dillusion come from?
NorKos are in Iran and vice versa. Russian “business men” are all over Asia and the ME providing only the most basic elements. Guns, tanks, AA systems, etc.
The rogue nuclear alliance is Iran and NorKo. Russia is nowhere in the equation and couldn’t throw a wrench in it if they wanted to, save a military strike (on their own weapons systems ie 300 series AA missile system).
Looks like Ed Morrissey went to the same foreign policy school as Obama & Friends.
dip it in cider on July 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM
shick on July 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM
if he does something decent or actually good
I’ll designate it as such
if he does something bad I will designate it as such
I’m no unhinged type.
blatantblue on July 9, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Well as the saying goes a broken clock is right twice a day. As much as I cannot stomach Obambi I have to admit this was a good bit of chess play, however this alone doesn’t make up for the rest of his absolutely atrocious foreign policy blunders he has made and I still believe TOTUS is opening up the US to be hit again!
Liberty or Death on July 9, 2009 at 12:12 PM
really ??? and Russia will reply to this rhetorical brilliance by saying “nukes ? what nukes? they’ve got no nukes ! show us the proof they got nukes !”
runner on July 9, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Obama: “If you promise to leave western Europe alone, we’ll let you have part of Czechslovokia”.
Putin: “Sure.”
The story you have just read is true; the names have been changed to protect the innocent.
BobMbx on July 9, 2009 at 12:12 PM
is this one of those trust but verify moments?
cmsinaz on July 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I think you missed my /sarc tag.
I agree with you. I’ll applaud him when he does something good as well.
shick on July 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM
This is what we know Bama promised.
What worries me greatly is what has he promised that nobody will tell us?
Harry Schell on July 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM
is this oboobi’s idea of strong foriegn policy?
SHARPTOOTH on July 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM
+1
indeed….
cmsinaz on July 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM
You’re joking, right? Russia has been blocking UN resolutions stronger than “naughty Iran, bad boy”. Russia ships nuclear fuel to Iran, while Bushehr and other facilities have been built by Russia. See here and here.
What are you, Hot Air Hector? “The Russians are not there!”
amerpundit on July 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Perhaps only to the extent that both may be temporary allies of convenience when it looks like US influence is too strong in ME and Central Asia. It is a balancing act, with shifting allegiances all around.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I think you missed my /sarc tag.
I agree with you. I’ll applaud him when he does something good as well.
shick on July 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM
indeed I did
I’m sorry
kinda blended in there reading it on my phone
blatantblue on July 9, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Joke…in that the Russian’s longstanding objection/argument against our extremely limited European missile defense initiative is nothing more than manufactured rhetoric produced for their domestic political consumption. To link our security to an unverifiable condition which is to be guaranteed by the greatest liars on the planet allows nObama to blame someone else when we see the 1st Iranian nuke descending towards Ramstein.
Its all about the ‘O’
dmann on July 9, 2009 at 12:18 PM
5… 4… 3…
petefrt on July 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM
__________________________________
pretty please with sugar on top
cmsinaz on July 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM
There is another question that no one seems to be asking, “If russia is no longer an enemy of the U.S. why then are they so against this missle defense?”
lwssdd on July 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM
This is obviously a mistake. Who’s been fiddling with TOTUS?
raxx on July 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Implied /sarc tag I hope…
DarkCurrent on July 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Yes it is and with Russia and China’s track record of assisting Iran with its nuke and missile programs and their constant vetos in the UN I wouldn’t trust either of them to clean my toilet!
Liberty or Death on July 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM
That would be a bad trade.
We, along with our allies in Israel, can put a stop to the Iranian nuclear program by any number of means. We could support the protesters in overthrowing their government, for example, or we could use military force to do it. Obama is giving a major concession, betraying our allies in Eastern Europe, to get something from Russia that we could more reliably provide for ourselves.
joe_doufu on July 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM
5 seconds after it was uttered.
portlandon on July 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Not so fast, Ed.
Medvedev/Putin think they clearly won a key concession from Obama by also linking missile defense to the new nuke reduction treaty negotiations.
Missile defense is not yet safe from being scrapped by Obama.
Cuffy Meigs on July 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Because as “friends” we will only offer our “deep concern” over any offensive moves by Russia. We are quickly becoming as effective as the U.N. Yak Yak Yak
HoustonRight on July 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I don’t whom I trust the least in any prospective deal-the Russians or Obama.
MaiDee on July 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM
For some reason this reminds me of the Peanuts cartoon when Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown.
scalleywag on July 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM
All that’s missing is Madeline Albright chasing after Medvedev to his limo…
MarkT on July 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM
More like a broken clock pointing straight at magnetic north, but otherwise agree.
DarkCurrent on July 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Sorry, but trading a defensive shield for an offensive is not a good trade.
We are giving up something that establishes a balance of power, for Russia not to support Iran nuclear.
It doesn’t say Russia will denounce, just not support…then there is China…
This a stupid, foolish, naive, rookie mistake.
Russia will couch their non-support with a wink and a nod…and we will honor that as being absolute, because the president doesn’t want to look like he was taken for a ride.
This is not a good deal, but a horrendous deal…we stop a program, with no guarantee that we receive anything concrete.
Obama will not ever admit he made a mistake, so he will make excuses for Russia’s lack of compliance.
He just needs a couple of years of “apparent” Russian support to get re-elected.
Terrible, terrible, awful, mistake…
right2bright on July 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM
If I ruled Russia, I would not take any President’s word with regard to missle defense. They know that policy can change once the Presidency changes hands, and hopefullly it will in 2013. Without a agreement approved by our Senate, we can put a missle shield in Europe anytime with the host countries approval.
WashJeff on July 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM
While I’ll take a “wait and see” view of this Cap’n Ed, I agree that it would be nice to have something to cheer Obama for than to always be dissatisfied with him…
If he could pull this off it would be a real coup…
But as others have said, verification might be tough…
RocketmanBob on July 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Wow Ed, you’ve been on a roll recently.
The problem with this trade is that Russia wouldn’t be sincere and Obama is.
If I lived in Eastern Europe, I would move.
moonsbreath on July 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Add to this, Russia is in the grips of the Russian Mafia, they are the industrialists in Russian that control so much of the political power. Putin was part of that corruption.
They have a huge vested interest, monetarily, in Iran’s nuclear program, so much engineering and so much trade is with Iran…do you actually think Russia will give that up?
They never have in the past…what has changed?
right2bright on July 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM
What a great visual…and Obama will not ever face the nation and say he was duped…that is the real danger, the cover-up if Russian doesn’t perform and we do.
right2bright on July 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM
This is a joke, right? Putin is a ruthless ex-KGB agent ruling Russia with an iron fist. Obama is toothless college professor with as much grasp of history as a high school freshman.
Mr. Pickles on July 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I’m confused. What is it exactly that Russia can or will do in regards to Iran to make them stop going nuclear?
Russia won’t block a strongly worded letter from the UN? Iran won’t stop doing what it’s doing for Russia or anyone else. They’ll shuffle their feet and play games with the UN until they get the nukes and then say..well, we’re a nuclear power now. What are you going to do?
But of course, Israel can’t let that happen. So again, what magical power does Russia have to stop the mullah? Do they have an on-off switch at the Kremlin for these nasty countries? N. Korea (on)…..Iran (on)……
Thunderstorm129 on July 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM
If we could guarantee that Iran was the only country who could pose such a danger anytime in the foreseeable future. The problem is, we can’t and anti-missle defenses provide protection from missles regardless of whether they come from Iran or some other country (like a reconstituted hostile Russia (just ask Georgia how “nice” the current Russians are)regardless of Obama’s assertion that this “has nothing to do with Russia”?).
Not a good trade imho.
Fatal on July 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM
They can stop shipping nuclear fuel and supplies to Iran. Perhaps they could even stop building and supplying Iran’s
nuclear facilities.
amerpundit on July 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM
The Russians should hold out for Obama to give up missile defense in North America. He’ll fold.
Little Boomer on July 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Voluntarily, permanently dismantle a defensive system because a 3rd party will neuter Iran’s internal nuke program? Laughably naive.
Who would monitor the elimination of the internal Iranian program to verify? What would keep Iran from importing a nuke from North Korea or elsewhere? What if the Iranian program was farmed out to a location somewhere in Syria?
Add in the reckless, shoot from the hip way this was offered at an academic gathering and we see how dangerous Obama is. Eliminating nukes from Iranian hands, even if possible, in no way eliminates the desirability of a European missile defense system. The Iranian government isn’t the only enemy of freedom on the planet.
T J Green on July 9, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Well, I might be wrong but I thought all that stuff was already on the ground in Iran? (Not being a smart-ass, I honestly am not sure). The problem I saw was that one bomb..just one is too many for Iran to have. And I think they have enough to get that one bomb, if not more. That’s why I wonder what Russia could even do at this point.
Does N. Korea not also supply a lot of this stuff around the world? Not sure if India or Pakistan do also.
Heck, I don’t know much. :)
Thunderstorm129 on July 9, 2009 at 12:41 PM
A surprisingly smart move by Obama–actually demanding something in exchange for a concession. In reality, Russia ALONE probably can’t stop Iran from getting nukes even if it wanted to, although it might be able to pressure China to drop a veto against UN sanctions or forced inspections.
But if Russia realizes that it’s impossible to stop Iran from getting nukes, and that’s the condition for removing the missile defenses, that might be Obama’s way of covering himself while keeping the missile defenses in place.
By linking the missile defenses in Eastern Europe to IRAN’s nukes and not Russia’s nukes, Obama has basically told the Russians that the missile defenses are not a threat to Russia, but a defense for Europe and the United States against Iran.
This is a surprisingly good move by Obama, but he needs to follow the Reagan doctrine with Russia: Trust but verify. Will Obama wimp out on the “verify” part?
Steve Z on July 9, 2009 at 12:43 PM
From what I understand, Iran has handed quite a bit of money over to Russia already and Moscow is its biggest supplier. Regardless, Russia isn’t going to end the Iranian program or even try — whether it can or otherwise.
amerpundit on July 9, 2009 at 12:43 PM
With all due respect, Ed, it does seem reasonable to assess US interests, and Obama interests, separately. Not sure what the US has to gain by this, but it’s easier to see what Obama does.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Of course, will they want to give up all that bank from doing business with Tehran?
JetBoy on July 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Not likely.
amerpundit on July 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM
While the safely-helmeted Obama cruised the sidewalks of Chicago on a bicycle, Putin was wrestling with tigers and telling the EU to pound sand at the same time.
President Pantywaist, indeed. Can he walk and chew gum at the same time?
BobMbx on July 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM
amerpundit, tell me what UN resolutions have EVER ACCOMPLISHED.
To even cite the UN, a corrupt and defunct gang of criminals, shows your lack of understanding.
So what if russia and china veto every resolution out pf the UN. Russia and China are the biggest profiteers of weapon sales globally, far behind the US. The vetos are a greed thing, not a military alliance thing.
When I said that Russia provides basic elements that is what I meant and exactly what you cited.
The Russian government is not involved internally in Iran. Notice that I described the Russian influence as business men, because that is what they are. People that have weapons or in some cases knowledge and sell it for a profit. In this case, to Iran.
I have former business partners that are 100% Americans, and they are working in Iran building “infrastructure” as you say, because the money is good.
Guess what, there are Russians in the US, Russians in Israel, Russians in Europe, because the money is good.
This does not mean that the Russian government is explicitly sponsoring Iranian nuclear weapons. Far from it. Pakistan and Europe and even the US are just as complicit if you look at it in this way.
I say again that the only direct govt connections on Nuke programs is NorKo and Iran alliance. The north Korean govt exports ONLY weapons and for a high price, nuclear weapon knowledge. This is explicit and well known.
Russia has no control over where its private citizens travel. Especially business men. Anything goes as long as Uncle Vlad gets the taxes from the sales.
This whole idea that Russia can magically stop the Iranian nuke program is laughable, and those of you sitting around clapping your hands and nodding your heads saying “gotta give it to Obama on this one” are just as laughable.
There is only one thing stopping the Iranian nuke program. Guess what, its not “robust debate”, its not protesters, its not Mousavi, its not Mother Russia, its not the UN.
*hint* GBU-82
And since we all know that is not going to happen you might as well release your brain from this strain and accept that we will see a nuclear device detonated somewhere in this world, certainly harmful to our interests, within the next 5-10 years. Accept it and set your brain free.
The Russians can’t stop this.
Quit giving such a ludicrous idea any play.
dip it in cider on July 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM
He has to. Otherwise he will have two nations causing him problems which interfere with his domestic agenda.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM
This does represent a broken campaign promise to dismantle the “unproven” missile defenses…but in this case, breaking a promise that should never have been made is good for the country. Necessity is the mother of invention, and sometimes reality bites.
Steve Z on July 9, 2009 at 12:46 PM
FYI:
Missile defnse is not only for protection from Iran it is alos prtection from North korea, and anyone else that may wish to harm us. I can support sharing it, I can not support negotiating it away under any cirumstance.
paulsur on July 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM
True. But it does accomplish several things for Obama, not the least of which is removing the Israel threat and giving Iran as much time as it needs.
Very very dangerous indeed.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM
And what if any number of other “Russian” satelites shipped the product?
How about N.Korea, China?
Do you think that the industrialists in Russian will give up their profits?
right2bright on July 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM
This has little, if anything to do with Russia, Iran, Israel. This is more about whether anything Obama does internationally will ever again be in what we used to consider America’s best interests.
Is Obama anti-American? Depending how you answer that question determines how you interpret his actions abroad.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I think it would help if someone would let the Iranians know that Obama won, okay? Don’t they get MTVNews over there?
BobMbx on July 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Right. I don’t see compliance with any of them.
ladyingray on July 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM
This is a pig in a poke, no way to verify.
NoDonkey on July 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 helped provide a base for our invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. It was cited quite often by the Bush Administration as justification.
The point is that they do veto the resolutions, regardless of why the vetos take place.
When I said that Russia provides basic elements that is what I meant and exactly what you cited.
It’s not involved in Iran? The government formed a joint research organization with Iran back in the 1990s, Persepolis, which provided nuclear experts.
The official Russian Federal Space Agency helps Iran with ballistic missiles and has for years.
Russia’s official nuclear agency, Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation, is helping build the Bushehr facility.
Russia isn’t standing there shrugging its shoulders as private citizens are doing business. Its state-owned companies are helping build the facilities and its space agency helps with ballistic missiles.
amerpundit on July 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM
“Russia strongly opposes US plans to site the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, which Washington says is necessary to defend against a surprise attack from Iran. Mr Obama made clear that he was willing to strike a deal with the Kremlin.”
Hey Ed, here’s an idea: unlike Chamberlain, let’s say WE ASK the affected parties, namely Poland and the Czech Republic, what THEY think so as to relieve them of the horrible thought of “YIKES- Is this Chamberlain-like deja vu all over again?”
Just a thought ya know…
Amendment X on July 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I agree. It was a deft albeit obvious move.
I’m not sure Putin will go for it anyway – he’ll want more.
But it does shift the responsibility for the missile deployment onto Iran and Moscow’s support for the Iranian nuclear and missile programs.
It would help, however, if the Administration stopped cutting spending on the missile shield programs.
SteveMG on July 9, 2009 at 12:56 PM
So if I am Russian, I play this out like this:
1. Pay lip service to stopping Iran from going nuke, while secretly phoning Iran to let them know we’re still gonna help you go nuke.
2. Get Obama’s missle defense trade-off.
3. Laugh.
Thunderstorm129 on July 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Absolutely. Missile defense wasn’t developed to deal exclusively with threats from Iran. I’d like to think that our goal is to protect America from anyone that poses a threat. Iran isn’t the only country capable of firing a missile these days.
raxx on July 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM
The satellite nations wouldn’t ship the materials if Russia warned them not to.
As for China, it’s been sending Iranian nuclear secrets to the United Nations, has backed compromise plans, and has said it wants to avoid confrontation over the issue. Get Russia to buckle and the rest will be easier.
amerpundit on July 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM
hah! Good point. How do you give away something you’ve already shown you’re willing to abandon at home? Why doesn’t Russia just sit back and not worry, given our current President’s cutting of funding AND the current financial woes of the US?
Thunderstorm129 on July 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM
As they say – Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile. Although I think the nut is old and moldy. It’s not the best response to the Russians but I suppose it is better than all out appeasement, which is more what I expected. So way to go Bambi- way to exceed my extremely looow expectations!
Warmongerer on July 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Good point. How must Poland and the Czech Republic feel to know that their safety is merely a bargaining chip?
And, I’m not so sure about this notion that Iranian missiles are the threat that the Poles and Czechs are really concerned about. I think if you ask them, the real reason they want missile defense is because they look to the east and they don’t trust Russia.
Obama has never really liked missile defense, so if he can limit it’s scope (link it to Iran only) it gives him an excuse to get rid of it if the very limited condition is met.
JohnInCA on July 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM
My first reaction to hearing this was:
“What an idiot.”
But a second later I started wondering:
“Wait… isn’t this a good deal?”
I highly doubt Russia will stop Iran, so it would mean Missile defense stays. And if they do stop Iran, It’s probably a good trade off anyway.
Not bad Obama, Lets hope you are getting the hang of this instead of it being a broken clock issue.
Trov on July 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Exactly – All Obama really wants is a photo-op and a talking point for the 2012 campaign.
There is no way this spineless “administration” is going to hold the Russians to their word. The only people the Obama administration have a hard on for are Republican-Americans, everyone else gets a free pass.
NoDonkey on July 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Sounds reasonable. Especially since Iran is the official reason we are building the missile defenses.
Upstater85 on July 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Exactly
I noticed the “if”, and a “warning” won’t do it.
Maybe China, but N.Korea?
And do you think that Russian industrialists (don’t confuse them with U.S. industrialists, a totally different breed) is going to give up millions in profits?
Do you really think that? If you do, you don’t know much about how powerful these companies are in Russia. They make the mafia of years past look like “day school”.
right2bright on July 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »