http://rian

Novosti, Russia

Iran Can't Be 'Swapped' for Halt to U.S. Missile Defense

 

"From the outset, the proposal seemed a meaningless and crude simplification of the problem. The security interests of Russia require a comprehensive discussion about the problems of a vast region comprising Iran, the Caspian, Central Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In all of these situations, many of which affect the interests of Moscow, the role of Iran is key."

 

By Military Commentator Ilya Kramnik

 

Translated By Igor Medvedev

 

March 5, 2009

 

Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)

Russian President Medvedev has acknowledged recieving a letter from President Obama, but says there was no offer of a 'quid pro quo' on the U.S. missile shield and dealing with Iran's nuclear program.

 

BBC NEWS VIDEO: President Obama discusses his letter to Russian President Medvedev, Mar. 3, 00:01:39RealVideo

MOSCOW: [In his letter to Russian President Medvedev], Barack Obama made no attempt to offer Russia a deal to exchange the deployment of a missile defense system in Europe for Russian assistance on the "Iran issue." President Obama himself made this clear at a press conference on Wednesday [March 4] after meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

 

So how was this "exchange" or quid pro quo supposed to work? The media suggested that the United States would "forget" about deploying interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe if Russia formed a "united front with the U.S." in talks on the Iranian nuclear and missile issue.

 

From the outset, the proposal seemed a meaningless and crude simplification of the problem. The security interests of Russia require a comprehensive discussion about the problems of a vast region comprising Iran, the Caspian, Central Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In all of these situations, many of which affect the interests of Moscow, the role of Iran is key.

 

At the moment, Russian support on the Iran issue is very important to the United States, because as it gradually loses influence over the situation, America needs the support of a country that commands authority in the Middle East. At the same time, it hardly makes sense for Russia to give up its own authority. By directly supporting the United States, Russia risks losing a significant portion of its own political capital, which it has accrued over recent years in the Middle East and Central Asia. Granted, these issues can and must be discussed. Not in terms of "supporting" the U.S., but in terms of a new American policy in the region.

 

The missile defense problem has no relation to Iran - and cannot be considered in isolation from relations between Russia and the NATO countries. Plucking the anti-ballistic missile issue from the shared question of European security is impossible.

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

 

Persuading the U.S. not to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe is not an adequate substitute for talks on a European security system. Ultimately, the potential deployment of American bases with first-strike weapons on the territory of new NATO member states is no less a threat than the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems or the possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

 

Finally, the issue of missile defense is closely linked to the preservation the nuclear and missile parity between the U.S. and Russia, which has recently been the subject of a lively discussion in connection with news of a U.S. initiative to radically reduce nuclear arsenals. An agreement between Russia and the United States on further reductions of nuclear arms must include limits on the development of missile defense systems - not only in Eastern Europe but throughout the world. Ideally, such a deal should prohibit the development of strategic missile defense systems, leaving only the possibility of establishing missile defense within the theater of military operations.

 

It should also be borne in mind that under current conditions, the "value" of the missile defense system as a bargaining chip has diminished significantly. In pre-crisis times, the cost to the U.S. were significant but not unimaginable - and the prospect of creating such a massive system at key points in the world appeared quite realistic. But tomorrow, the U.S. may well be in a situation in which it will have to renounce its missile defense system without negotiation - and without disguising this fact with fine words about "additional tests" and the "development of a more sophisticated system." In fact, the real reason will be a simple lack of funds to pay for such a gigantic project. These are facts that also have to be taken into account.

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

 

That is why an "Iran-missile defense deal" plucks two problems out of political and economic context and resolves neither.

 

To reiterate, the two issues can and must be negotiated between Russia and the U.S. - but each within the framework of a range of complex problems. Iran - as part of a range of issues involving the Middle East and Central Asia; and missile defense as part of the issues of European and global security. Looking at the situation objectively, an agreement between the two countries is possible since both Russian and American administrations have shown a willingness to talk, including on the key issues.

 

CLICK HERE FOR RUSSIAN VERSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US March 10, 8:49pm]

 

 

































































[The Times, U.K.]