Avoiding a New Cold War

Iran’s recent test of its Omid satellite has raised concern that the next launch could be tipped with a less palatable cargo. But, even though the launch does raise some concerns about Iran’s military potential, the United States should continue to pursue an even-handed strategy of engagement with the Islamic Republic. In particular, plans for a Central European missile shield should be shelved until further notice.

The Iranian test has raised alarm bells in the West and renewed interest in the Bush administration’s harebrained scheme for a European missile defense program in Poland and the Czech Republic. But, before we commit to such a program, the Obama administration should remember the most important lesson of the Bush years: the importance of using diplomacy first. Before committing to the expensive and unproven missile shield in Central Europe, the United States should exhaust all of its remaining diplomatic options.

The proposed missile shield will not only encourage overly militaristic behavior in the Pentagon, but it will also seriously damage our already-tenuous relationship with the Russian Federation. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has had a rocky relationship with its former Warsaw Pact allies, especially Poland. Moreover, Moscow has viewed the continued expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance into Central and Eastern Europe as evidence of growing American hegemony.

We should take the Russians seriously. After all, the last time we stared them down, it took 40 years—and trillions of dollars in defense spending—to “win” the Cold War—a victory that was accompanied by the wholesale economic collapse of the entire region. And the Russian leadership is highly aware of the stakes at hand. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the US of initiating “a new round of arms race,” and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev has warned that Russia is “not afraid of… a Cold War.” Hopefully Medvedev’s threat relies more on bravado than truth, but this assumption is not a risk worth taking. As the recent South Ossetian conflict indicates, Russia is willing to use force to assert its power in the region.

The move also threatens our new alliances with Poland and the Czech Republic, two of our strongest backers in the NATO organization. Moreover, the majority of Poles and Czechs oppose the plan, which would needlessly put them at risk of armed conflict with Russia. Last year, President Medvedev announced that Russia would be relocating several SS-26 “Iskander” missiles to Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia’s small exclave of territory on the Baltic coast that borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. While these plans have been temporarily put on hold, the Russian threat should be taken seriously, not needlessly provoked.

In addition to its disastrous implications for Russo-American relations in the post-Soviet era, the defense program would put a damper on President Obama’s promised negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program. This January, at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Joseph Biden announced that the United States would “continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability,” hardly the language of constructive diplomacy. To many, Biden’s speech sent a very direct message to Tehran: Even with Bush gone, it remains part of the “axis of evil.” This is the wrong posture to adopt at a time when preventing Iran from going nuclear is in our best interests.

Indeed, the worst possible scenario emerging out of this diplomatic fracas is a joint Russo-Iranian alliance against the United States. Energy-rich Russia and Iran have struck a friendship of sorts. In 2000, then-President Putin abrogated the 1995 Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement and renewed arms dealings between Russia and Iran. Since then, Putin has signed a $1 billion arms deal with Iran and supported Iran’s nuclear ambitions. During Putin’s 2007 visit to Tehran, the first trip to the Iranian capital by a Kremlin leader since Joseph Stalin’s visit in 1943, Putin and Iranian President Ahmadinejad discussed Iran’s nuclear energy program.

Faced with this difficult dilemma, the Obama administration seems to have buried its head in the Persian sands; our current policy is deceptively vague. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton has strongly hinted that the Obama administration will reconsider the European missile defense program. Still, no firm decision has been made, and by doing this we please nobody and alienate all sides of the issue: the European Union, Russia, and Iran.

Equivocating on this critical issue will only make the problem worse. To that end, the Obama administration should firmly reject the proposed European missile defense shield, especially if it plans to diplomatically reach out to Russia and Iran in the future.


Nafees A. Syed ’10, a Crimson editorial writer, is a government concentrator in Leverett House.