Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) firmly criticized President Obama for reportedly offering a deal to the Russians, where the United States would back down from its plans to build the European Missile Defense (EMD) protection against Iranian missiles in exchange for Russian pressure on Iran. (Please see other stories in this issue.)
The deal would have had Russia help to push Iran into abandoning its nuclear materials production program. However, Obama has denied he made that specific offer, saying instead that he merely made some observations in a letter to the Russians about the need for the missile defense system as long as Iran continues to build lethal capabilities.
“I have not seen the [Obama] letter so I can only comment on current reports” in the news media, Franks stated. He is co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Missile Defense Caucus.
He pointed to public statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said Israel soon shall cease to exist, and that Israel should be wiped from the map.
“It would be derelict to trade our most cost-effective means of defending the U.S. homeland, and U.S. interests abroad, for the hope that Russia may be able to convince Mr. Amadinajad to suspend the Iranian Republic’s nuclear program.” Franks said.
Russia has excoriated U.S. plans to build the EMD, saying it would threaten Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). But American officials have said 10 interceptors can’t do that, and in fact those interceptors wouldn’t be able to catch Russian ICBMs.
“The U.S. government has been clear with Russia,” Franks said. “The European Ballistic Missile Defense System does not pose a threat to Russia; it defends Americans and Europeans. I absolutely welcome Russian cooperation to convince the Iranians to halt their nuclear program. It is clear that we need global pressure and all the help from our friends and allies we can get. But a friend of the United States would not ask us to enter a proverbial boxing ring with our hands tied behind our back. We need a way to defend ourselves. And that is the purpose of the European Missile Defense Site.”
Franks was far from the only Republican in Congress protesting the reported Obama overture to Moscow.
Rep. John M. McHugh of New York, ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), and Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, ranking Republican on the HASC strategic forces subcommittee, joined with more than 40 GOP legislators signing a protest letter to Obama that opposed the reported deal with Russia.
“If reports are accurate, it is our understanding that you sent a letter to Russian President Medvedev last month suggesting your Administration would halt the development of a European missile defense system in exchange for Russian assistance to stop Iran from developing nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles,” the members wrote.
“We are concerned that the Administration may be undertaking a surprisingly unilateral action. Though we share your strong devotion to our national security and the security of our allies, we believe it is unwise and premature to offer such a concession. We urge you to clarify your Administration’s position and respectfully caution against a policy that relies too heavily on Russian cooperation.”
The lawmakers questioned the wisdom of giving up plans for the EMD at a time when the threat posed by Iran is increasing. Further, any such deal with Moscow “rests on a questionable assumption that Russia can effectively curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” the members asserted.
As well, even a conditional offer to drop plans for the EMD “weakens our position in future bilateral negotiations,” they warned.
Finally, such an envisioned deal would damage security of European allies, they stated.
The purported deal “undermines NATO’s endorsement of the European missile defense proposal,” they wrote. “In particular, it undercuts our allies — the Czech Republic and Poland — who received bipartisan assurances that once they approved the missile defense agreements, the U.S. would provide support and funding.”
The EMD would involve a radar on Czech soil, and interceptors in ground silos in Poland.
Further, the GOP lawmakers noted that up to now, Russia has been anything but an ally of the United States, threatening to use Iskander missiles to destroy the EMD if Washington attempts to build it.
“Russia’s actions, particularly in Eastern Europe, give us little confidence that they can be relied upon to follow through with such a commitment,” the legislators wrote.
“Over the last year, as you know, Russia has pursued a divisive policy to re-exert its Soviet-era sphere of influence. During this time, Russia invaded Georgia, intimidated other nations from joining NATO, and threatened to target Eastern Europe with nuclear missiles should the proposed European missile defense sites be built. Further, amidst a global economic crisis, Russia has disrupted shipments of natural gas to Europe for the second time in three years. Most recently, Russia used financial incentives to persuade Kyrgyzstan to deny the U.S. access to its Manas military base in order to support coalition operations in Afghanistan. Given these events, we seriously question reliance upon Russia’s support for a common approach on Iran or missile defense.”
Even if Russia could be trusted, Iran isn’t likely to be pressured into abandoning its nuclear or missile programs, the Republican letter continued.
“Iran has clearly indicated they have no intention of halting their nuclear or ballistic missile programs, and their recent actions substantiate this point,” the Republicans argued.
“Last month, they launched a satellite into orbit using dual-use, long-range ballistic missile technology. Last weekend, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [Adm. Michael Mullen] announced that Iran has enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. Two weeks ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran underestimated by a third how much uranium it has enriched and noted that Iran has a total of 5,600 centrifuges–an increase from the 3,800 listed in a November 2008 report–despite three rounds of United Nations Security Council sanctions.”
Another disturbing point, the Republicans continued, is that Russian leaders often fail to comprehend the rising threat that Iran poses.
“Despite these developments, Russian leaders have indicated a fundamental disagreement with the West’s views on the threat posed by Iran. Simply put, they apparently do not see a threat. Furthermore, Moscow continues to benefit economically from its support of Iran’s nuclear program, specifically through the Bushehr nuclear reactor it has helped Iran build. For all these reasons, we remain skeptical that Russia would be in a position to halt Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions, and cautious of a strategy that relies on that nation’s action vis-a-vis Iran to protect us and our allies.”
Also, any deal with the Russians on EMD and Iran might undercut impending negotiations with Moscow on bilateral arms control moves, the letter continued.
Further, jettisoning the EMD now would make the United States seem to be an unreliable ally to Europeans, since NATO has endorsed EMD as a complementary system dovetailing with NATO systems defending against short- and medium-range enemy missiles.
The Republicans complimented Obama for wanting to work with the Russians, but “we do not believe that terminating the European missile defense proposal in exchange for Russian assistance with Iran is the best course of action to meet our national security objectives.”
Finally, the Republicans asked Obama to consult with Congress, rather than taking unilateral steps such as the reported agreement offer to Moscow.
That echoes complaints that Democrats made when then-President Bush made deals without consulting them.