by Rick Rozoff
September 20, 2009
Since the surprise news from the White House and the Pentagon on September 17
that the United States was relinquishing plans to deploy ground-based
interceptor missiles to Poland and a missile radar installation to the Czech
Republic speculation has been rife on two scores.
First, was this move a sincere effort to “reset” relations with Russia, possibly
part of a trade-off for Russian transit and logistical support for the American
and NATO war in South Asia and for Moscow agreeing to tougher measures –
sanctions at any rate – against Iran?
Deutsche Welle ran a feature shortly after U.S. President Barack Obama’s and
Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ announcements on Thursday which included an
interview with Dr. Karl-Heinz Kamp, the research director at the NATO Defense
College in Rome, in which he described the seeming U.S. about-face as follows:
“This is not a withdrawal from the idea of missile defense…as the US
even has a law that obliges each president to pursue missile defense as long as
the technical capabilities exist and the US can absorb the bearable costs.” 
In expressing a suspicion that many of his readers must have shared concerning
simultaneous American claims that Iranian missile capabilities were less and not
more developed than reported earlier and that the nation yet represented a
growing threat, Kamp added:
“This decision will be very hard for some to understand. On the one hand, you
have the Obama administration saying that Iran is not as much of a threat as
before, and therefore there is no need for the defense shield. On the other, the
official White House line is that Iran is still actively pursuing its nuclear
program and is not willing to abandon this….[T]he US hopes that by removing
the shield, it can persuade Russia to take a stronger anti-Iran stance. But
there are risks here. No one is sure that Russia will respond by supporting US
pressure on Iran and secondly, whether Iran would take any notice even if it
The conclusion one has to draw is the simple truth – that Iran never presented a
threat of launching long-range missiles at the United States, Washington’s
rationale for the Polish and Czech deployments.
Yet President Obama began his statement on Thursday by endorsing George W.
Bush’s characterization of Iran as the very danger that supposedly necessitated
the third position missile shield deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic
negotiated by the Bush administration while he, Obama, went on to abrogate those
The second question that began to surface after Obama’s and Gates’ comments was
one to the effect of “And now what trick does Washington have up its sleeve?”
The first issue is the easier to contend with: Either the U.S. was compelled to
– backhandedly – admit the falsity of its Iranian threat claim or it still
intends to escalate pressure against Iran, including direct military measures.
The latter is closer to the truth and leads quickly to the second issue. What is
Washington planning to do with the western flank of its global interceptor
Pentagon chief Gates immediately revealed part of the new picture in prefacing
his comments with “Those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are
either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing.” He then
laid out a three-phase strategy which included:
1. Deploying advanced sensors and interceptor missiles in both northern and
southern Europe. Gates didn’t specify which nations would host them, but
Scandinavian and Balkans states seem likely candidates. The stationing of
missile surveillance facilities and interceptor missiles on both ends of the
European continent would represent a qualitative escalation of his earlier plans
for ten missiles in Poland and one X-band radar in the Czech Republic even if
the missiles in question are of shorter range.
2. Enhanced use of Aegis class warships with SM-3 [Standard Missile-3]
interceptor missiles which the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has in recent
months advanced considerably. Next month the MDA plans the first test of an SM-3
against a ballistic missile.
Reports are that the Pentagon is to begin the deployment of missile-killing
warships in the Mediterranean and North Seas. The Norwegian, Barents, Baltic and
Black Seas may not be far behind.
3) The adaptation of SM-3s for ground use. In Gates’ words, “fielded, upgraded,
land-based SM-3s.” He mentioned that the Czech Republic and Poland were
possibles sites for such deployments.
A major Polish daily newspaper revealed late last month that possible locations
for U.S. missile shield components would be Israel, Turkey and the Balkans.
Associated Press on September 18 delivered a confirmation of the Polish report
by linking it with the previous day’s development in two successive sentences:
“Turkey’s military says it is planning to spend $1 billion (euro680 million) on
four long-range missile defense systems.
“Friday’s announcement comes a day after U.S. President Barack Obama canceled a
long-planned missile shield for Eastern Europe, replacing a Bush-era project
that was opposed by Russia with a plan he contended would better defend against
Iranian missiles.” 
A news agency in Azerbaijan quoted a political expert, Zardusht Alizade,
“commenting on media reports that the U.S. will deploy a new missile defense
system in the Caucasus,” as saying “The United States may consider the joint use
of the Gabala radar station” in his nation. 
The radar base is currently operated by Russia and that nation offered its joint
use to the U.S. two years ago only to have the invitation spurned. Washington
may plan to gain sole use of the Gabala base as Azerbaijan has been transformed
into little better than a U.S. and NATO military client state since the break-up
of the Soviet Union and more so with each passing year.
An American news source wrote on September 18 that “the new plan might include
deploying an X-band radar to the Caucasus – the region sandwiched between the
Black Sea and the Caspian Sea….
“It’s easy to speculate about which countries in the region could potentially
host an X-band radar. The United States has close military ties with Georgia.
And neighboring Azerbaijan, which shares a border with Iran, has received U.S.
funding for the construction of radar installations.” 
The author of the article, Nathan Hodge, said that he had been told by U.S.
Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner three years ago that the South
Caucasus would prove a “good location for a small X-band radar to provide
tracking and discrimination of missiles launched from Iran.”
He added that the probable model would be “an AN/TPY-2, the transportable X-band
radar developed for the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system.” An
AN/TPY-2 [Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance] installation was deployed
by the Pentagon to Israel last autumn, one which has a range of 2,900 miles. A
comparable capacity in Azerbaijan, Georgia or both could conduct missile and
other forms of surveillance far beyond Iran.
EurasiaNet, a news source operated by the Open Society Institute concentrating
on the Caucasus and Central Asia, featured a report called “Eurasia Security:
New US Anti-Missile Vision Has Heavy Emphasis On The Caucasus.”
It stated that “Moscow’s muted contentment over the about-face in US missile
defense plans in Europe may not last long. The Pentagon…is considering moving
anti-missile radar systems from Russia’s European front yard to its backyard,
the Caucasus.” 
General James Cartwright, vice-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was
quoted in the feature on a proposed missile surveillance deployment, saying
“It’s probably more likely to be in the Caucasus that we would base [the radar],
because it’s to get the early tracks.” 
The article offered more specifics: “US defense officials have not specified the
radar’s new proposed location, but some Georgian and Russian officials and
commentators have been quick to suggest that the Pentagon has Georgia in mind.
These analysts said that if the United States is thinking about the South
Caucasus, Georgia would be the best place for the radar deployment.”
On the day before the piece appeared Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory
Karassin expressed concerns about the U.S. and its NATO allies remilitarizing
Georgia, a provocation pregnant with “developing a dynamic of its own because a
temptation to make a blitzkrieg appears when the military biceps are being
pumped and drilling goes on in the units of the Armed Forces and special
He added, “Russia will insist on radical international measures to stop supplies
of weaponry to Georgia and to make sure that the exercising of crack troops
there, which is allegedly aimed at enabling them to join the international
security forces in Afghanistan, becomes predictable and limited.” 
The reference to crack troops relates to U.S. Marines recently dispatched to the
nation, combat veterans of the Afghan and Iraqi wars, to train Georgian
The EurasiaNet report also quoted Georgian member of parliament Davit
Darchiashvili: “The US decision dovetails with our [security] needs. So long as
the radar is stationed in the Caucasus, Georgian security needs would likely be
“This is the most important thing….[I]t is not of crucial significance as to
where and how these defense systems will be deployed.” 
It also cites Russian military analyst Vladislav Shurygin remarking the
self-evident fact that such radar in Georgia would be used against Russia, with
him stating “We should not have any illusions about the US plans.”
Also on September 18 a Bulgarian news site wrote that “Bulgaria is one of the
possible locations for the deployment of America’s new interceptor missiles in
In regard to THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and other missile
shield elements, the same source quotes former chief of staff of the Russian
Strategic Missile Force Viktor Esin as warning “Since Poland was willing to host
the larger interceptor missiles as part of the Bush plan, it presumably might
accept the smaller ones. And even if Poland and the Czech Republic do not, other
former Warsaw Pact countries, such as Romania or Bulgaria, might.” 
The Czech Republic is two nations removed from Russia. Poland also doesn’t
border mainland Russia. But Azerbaijan does. And so does Georgia. Other nations
abutting Russia are already incorporated into the global interceptor missile
shield (Norway), have been mentioned by the Missile Defense Agency as a future
partner (Ukraine) and are probable participants in the making (Estonia, Latvia
and Finland.) Bulgaria and Romania are across the Black Sea from Russia and
Turkey is too. The containment of Iran is increasingly looking like the
encirclement of Russia.
The quote “Moscow’s muted contentment over the about-face in US missile defense
plans in Europe may not last long” may be a grave understatement.
1) Deutsche Welle, September 17, 2009
3) Associated Press, September 18, 2009
4) Today.AZ, September 18, 2009
5) Wired, September 18, 2009
6) EurasiaNet, September 18, 2009
8) Itar-Tass, September 18, 2009
9) EurasiaNet, September 18, 2009
10) Standart News, September 18, 2009
U.S. Missile Shield Plans: Retreat Or Advance? by Rick Rozoff
Balkans Revisited: U.S., NATO Expand Military Role In Southeastern Europe by Rick Rozoff
Czech left welcomes U.S. decision to give up radar base
Obama drops missile shield for Czech Republic
Pingback: Bulgaria, Romania: U.S., NATO Bases For War In The East by Rick Rozoff « Dandelion Salad
I really should have known…
I was over the moon when I read the other day that Obama was pulling out of the defence shield, but, like I said, I really should have known better.
This is an escalation and not a pull back. It is provocative, dangerous and stupid. Furthermore, the US military is overexttended right now, and the US can’t afford this dunderheadedness. It’s a grab for Middle East oil. It would be much more cost effective to raise our petroleum from algae. The bio-diesel from it can be refined into gasoline. The technology is available. It would greatly lower the cost of fuel because it wiould eliminate most transportation costs. It would also make the world a lot safer because it wold eliminate the alleged need for these aggressive acts.