Speaking on Thursday, US President Barack Obama announced that plans for a European ‘missile shield’ to guard the US and her allies against ballistic missiles have been shelved. Specifically, the US will no longer be building radar installations and long range interceptor missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland. Obama claimed that the US had overestimated the potential missile threat posed by Iran and that consequently a replacement system, ‘based on proven systems’ would be cheaper and also more effective. Keep up to date with the latest developments and sharpest perspectives in a world of strife and struggle. Sign up to receive toD's daily security briefings via email by clicking here
The US defence secretary extrapolated, predicting the principal threat posed by the Islamic Republic was likely to remain its short-ranged weapon systems, rather than ICBMs. The Obama administration’s alternative will therefore comprise short-range interceptors based in northern and southern Europe, supported by sea-based systems. The prosaically named Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), currently mounted on the US Navy’s Aegis destroyers, will form the lynchpin of American missile defence but the new plan also calls for the deployment of the SM-3 in ground installations. Secretary Gates explained that the SM-3 is tried and tested technology and, compared with the $70 million dollar cost of a long-range interceptor, is cheap, with each weapon costing $10 million.
Republicans have criticised the move as a ‘failure’ to address the Iran threat. The second most senior Republican senator, John Kyl, has referred to the revised plan as ‘dangerous and short sighted’. He also highlighted the likely diplomatic damage that would result from the decision, believing the revision would come as a ‘bitter disappointment…even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe.’ This latter admonition has been vindicated by responses from senior figures in Poland and the Czech Republic, where a former Prime Minister, Mirek Topolanek, concurring this was ‘not good news’ for his country.
The ToD verdict: The missile defence programme begun by George W. Bush was always controversial. Apparently echoing Reagan’s white elephant ‘Star Wars’ Strategic Defence Initiative, several commentators pointed to its enormous cost and dubious feasibility. As a report in the New York Times in 2004 pointed out, the Missile Defence Agency had spent more than $80 billion since 1985 and had only scored five hits out of eight tests, all of which were conducted under heavily controlled conditions.
In breaching the terms of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed in 1972 between the US and the Soviet Union, the programme also caused significant misgivings in Moscow. Any such programme would be seen, regardless of President Bush’s assurances to the contrary, as a threat to Russia’s strategic missile forces. Several commentators have argued that the end result would simply be greater insecurity, as both Russia and China increased their own arsenals to counter the shield.
Secretary Gates has been adamant that the Obama Administration’s decision was ‘not about Russia’ in the face of Republican accusations that the US was appeasing its former Cold War rival. However, it is inconceivable that forthcoming negotiations regarding possible upgraded sanctions against Iran, where Russian opposition is expected, as well as forthcoming discussions over the future of the START I treaty between the US and Russia, have not played some role in the US administration’s calculations. Certainly if Obama is able to scrap a white elephant and in return receive Russian support for a robust stance on Iran as well as a renewed treaty to limit the possession of strategic arms, Republican criticism notwithstanding, it would represent a significant diplomatic victory.
Ailing Hizbollah under Iranian control, claims senior IDF officer
A senior IDF officer claimed in the pages of Ha’aretz on Thursday that Iranian control over the Lebanese militant group Hizbollah has increased significantly since 2006. The officer, who is quoted anonymously, attributed this shift to Iranian displeasure over Hizbollah’s conduct in fighting the ‘Summer War’ against Israel in July and August 2006 and a general weakening of the movement following the conflict.
This erosion of Hizbollah’s influence is principally due to the activities of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). First deployed to the country in 1978, after the Summer War the UN Security Council passed resolution 1701 which increased UNIFIL’s manpower to 15,000 and sanctioned more aggressive rules of engagement. The Summer War, which devastated much of the country, also resulted in many Lebanese communities resisting the reconstruction of Hizbollah outposts and weapons caches. As a result, Hizbollah’s influence is now largely confined to Shi’ite villages and towns in the south of the country.
Hizbollah’s position was further compromised by the assassination of its chief of operations, Imad Mughnieh, in February 2008. An active member of the group’s military wing since its establishment in the wake of the 1982 Israeli invasion, Mugnieh was described by Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer, as ‘probably the most intelligent, most capable operative we’ve ever run across, including the KGB’, and is yet to be replaced. According to the IDF officer, this vacuum has been filled by an ever increasing number of Iranians, with effective leadership exercised by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
The resurgence of missile strikes against Israel carried out from southern Lebanon has been taken as a further indication of the organisation’s weakness. The IDF officer quoted in Hare’etz, among other observers, believes recent attacks to have been carried out by Al-Qaeda influenced Palestinians, based in refugee camps beyond Hizbollah’s control and in defiance of Hizbollah’s strict instructions to the contrary.
Netanyahu demands international support against UN Gaza indictments
Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu called on Thursday for major powers to disavow a controversial UN report into Israel’s December 2008 Gaza war, asking those who say ‘we should take risks for peace’ should ‘come out now, condemn this report and act to quash its consequences now.’ His comments are being interpreted as threat that the future of peace talks with the Palestinians depends on the report being disregarded by the international community.
The American ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, seems to have answered Nethanyahu’s call, raising ‘very serious concerns’ and criticising the mandate given by the UN Human Rights Council to its fact finding mission as ‘unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable’.
The report, which was released on Tuesday, said that there was evidence that both Israeli and Palestinian forces committed war crimes during the Gaza conflict. The report also accuses of Israel of a ‘deliberate, disproportionate use of force’ during the three week operation.