ICAR Student Opinion

Abandoning Missile Shield While Selling Missiles to Turkey

It all began with a quasi-historic decision made by the Obama administration on September 17th to abandon the missile shield program in Eastern Europe. This verdict is quite significant as Obama puts a sharp distinction between himself and Bush once more, taking a more diplomatic stance domestically and internationally. But scrapping the program, in CNN's terms, is important because of other issues, like Iran's longrange missile capacity.

While the international community looked on in awe, the US agreed to sell patriot missiles to Turkey for 7,8 billion dollars, indicating the threat the US perceives from Iran to analysts. Two regions: eastern Europe and Turkey, just a couple of hundreds of kilometers apart set the border between long and medium range missiles. Abandoning the program in Eastern Europe while selling 7,8 billion dollars of PAC-3's to Turkey means that the Obama administration is not expecting Iran's missiles to go beyond western Turkey.

This refreshing move has noteworthy implications for US-Russia relations. Right after the decision hit the news Russian President Medvedev hailed it as positive and Putin praised it as correct and brave. It wasn't hard to notice the following developments U.S. and Russia discuss disarmament, Russia halts missile deployment (Al Jazeera) and finally NATO Chief reaches out to Russia (BBC).

Rasmussens reaching out to Russia under the light of these developments is especially significant when one considers the recent G-20 summit. Perhaps Rasmussen and Obama were calculating this move's effect on Russia's support against Iran, maybe they weren't. This idea, however, cannot be overlooked simply because Israel's former defense secretary announced on September 16th that if Western powers do not impose sanctions on Iran, Israel will have to attack by the end of the year (Jerusalem Post).

Is the Obama administration secretly preparing for war to back up Israel and trying to gain Russia and NATO support? Or is this a part of a genius bluff against Iran? We will see the answer in just a couple of months. However, rather than employing the typical 'wait and see strategy,' peacemakers have an instinct and urgency to act upon such alarming situations. Assessing the situation objectively and planning a careful intervention is our modus operandi. But what can one do in this league where Obama, Putin and Rasmussen make decisions?

It would be unrealistic to hope to have a direct influence on foreign policy decisions that are carefully calculated and planned. In terms of international politics, there are just a couple of ways such a conflict can be averted. Either Iran will take the hint and work towards a peaceful middle ground in the October meetings or the US and NATO will back down from this bluff to discourage Israel and maybe Israel will be kind enough say okay. These are areas we, peacemakers, don't have much access to.

A more sensible intervention, then, is to influence decision makers on either side of the issue, offering dialogue between Israelis and Iranians, running Track-2 problem solving workshops and carrying them to the media would certainly reduce support for aggressive actions.

The G-20 Summit and the Iran-P5+1 talks are opportunities to observe whether the issue is escalating or coming to a more amicable solution. It is important, however, to try to prevent actions which would have serious consequences for the Middle East and for the world.