Op-Ed: A Grave Mistake

Op-Ed

The decision to abandon the missile-defense sites in Europe is one of America's gravest foreign-policy and national-security mistakes in quite some time. In addition to its damaging effect on both American and European security, it exposes an unnerving gap in American credibility.

The threat of a missile attack is very real. The actions of both Iran and North Korea should be leading us toward a more robust missile-defense system, not a watered down version. Our missile-defense plan has always been predicated on the need for multiple layers of protection. I strongly support increasing our mobile sea- and land-based defense capabilities; however, this should be done in addition to -- not at the expense of -- our European missile-defense sites. I fully support a peaceful diplomatic solution to both the Iranian and North Korean missile and nuclear threats; but we should not be removing safeguards such as missile defense in Europe.

Iran has launched satellites into orbit and test-fired numerous missiles. Countless foreign intelligence services have declared that Iran is close to achieving a nuclear-weapons capability. Nevertheless, the Obama administration has chosen to reduce missile-defense funding and abandon agreements with our European allies. While its decision to expand sea-based missile defense is a welcome move, considering the seriousness of the threat, it is crucial to keep in mind that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the sea-based option will cost twice as much as the European land sites, and the administration has reduced overall funding for missile defense this year by 15 percent.

The administration views Russia as a key player in negotiating an end to the threat of the Iranian nuclear and missile programs. However, Russia has been hesitant to fully assist, because Iran has been purchasing its military equipment during a difficult time for the Russian economy. The decision to abandon missile defense in Europe represents a concession to Moscow designed to elicit greater Russian cooperation on Iran.

This decision raises several important questions. If missile defense was sacrificed to improve U.S. relations with Russia, what future concessions will be made to boost U.S. ties with, say, China? What is the status of America's credibility with those Middle East countries that have been promised missile-defense coverage? How will the U.S. decision on European missile-defense sites affect U.S. relations with Japan, a key missile-defense partner that sits next door to North Korea?

The one certainty is that this decision places both America and its allies at a disadvantage.

Source