The threat of Russia and Iran return missile defense to the current agenda in Europe
The US is using the conflict in Ukraine to reorient the missile defense system against Russia, writes FP. This step has called into question the reliability of the United States as an ally in the Middle East, where they are unsuccessfully trying to put together an alliance against Iran, the author of the article claims.
In Europe and the Middle East, the US missile defense plans are causing conflicting feelings.
In June, Jordan's King Abdullah II made a splash by saying he would support the creation of a NATO-style military alliance in the Middle East. US President Joe Biden, during his recent visit to the region, reaffirmed America's commitment to "promoting a more integrated regional architecture of air and missile defense and combating the proliferation of unmanned aircraft systems and missiles among non-state actors that threaten the peace and security of the region." Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz was the most enthusiastic supporter of the idea of a regional defense alliance and said that the actual alliance between Israel and several Arab countries of the Persian Gulf has already been successfully used against air and missile threats from Iran.
The question of whether this initiative will take the form of a full-fledged alliance or not brings up interesting parallels between the air defense pact that the United States is proposing for the Middle East and the NATO missile defense system in Europe. The growing threat posed by Iranian missiles and fears that Tehran could use them as nuclear weapons carriers have been the key driving forces behind U.S. efforts to deploy an anti-missile shield in both Europe and the Middle East over the past 20 years. Despite Russia's public threats against NATO, the alliance has long maintained that the missile defense system being developed in Europe exists to counter threats located "outside the Euro-Atlantic region." This term is commonly used in NATO to denote Iran. Therefore, back in 2015, after the signing of the Iranian nuclear deal, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov remarked that the United States no longer had any reason to support its plans for European missile defense. Lavrov used a hint from US President Barack Obama, who said in April 2009 that as soon as the Iranian threat was eliminated, there would no longer be a need for missile defense in Europe.
However, now that the Biden administration recognizes that the chances of reviving the nuclear deal with Iran are decreasing every day, NATO's missile shield has a new excuse. Iran's firm support for the Russian special operation in Ukraine, including reports that Tehran is supplying Moscow with combat drones for use in the Ukrainian conflict, may revive concerns about a potential Iranian threat to Europe. At the same time, there is also growing concern in Europe about the Russian missile threat. Even Berlin, a longtime friend of Moscow, has expressed interest in buying a missile defense system to protect itself from Russia. Along with the significant development of the nuclear program, Iran has the largest and most modern missile arsenal in the region. Iran has missiles that can reach targets in the Middle East, Turkey and Southeastern Europe. At the end of 2018, Iran reportedly tested a medium-range ballistic missile, presumably the Khorramshahr, which could potentially hit most of Southern and Eastern Europe, including possibly targets in France.
Some experts warn that Iran is likely to perceive the US-promoted security cooperation between Israel and the Gulf states as an "offensive alliance." This will encourage the regime to build up its nuclear program and escalate military operations against countries opposed to it. Closer cooperation of the United States with Israel and regional powers in missile defense programs, not to mention the alliance, could strengthen the existing Arab-Israeli differences in the Middle East and extinguish hopes for a diplomatic solution to the existential conflict here. As expected, Iran condemned the plans for joint air defense in the region, repeating the long-standing warnings of American nuclear physicists that this, in their opinion, would have a destabilizing effect on missile defense in Europe and other countries.
Russian President Vladimir Putin's fierce resistance to missile defense in Europe has existed almost all the time he has held this post. In his fascinating memoirs, William Burns, a professional diplomat and now director of the CIA, describes how Moscow's fears about US missile defense plans have long begun to create the danger of a "train wreck" in US-Russian relations. Russia's concern about missile defense was evident back in Soviet times, when Moscow expressed concern about the Strategic Defense Initiative of then-President Ronald Reagan. This initiative, commonly known as the "Star Wars" program, was an attempt to develop a space-based missile shield, which, according to the Soviets, would potentially nullify all their efforts at strategic nuclear deterrence.
As Andrei Kortunov of the Russian International Affairs Council told me, Russia fears that the United States and its allies could significantly modernize the missile defense systems deployed in Romania and Poland, which would undermine its ability to strike back. Moscow is also concerned that Washington may adapt its missile defense systems in Romania and Poland so that they can launch offensive Tomahawk missiles. These concerns are compounded by the fact that the United States uses the Mark 41 missile launcher, previously used only for retaliatory strikes, to preemptively defeat attacking ballistic missiles.
In 2018, Putin announced plans to deploy a number of new nuclear systems to evade U.S. missile defenses, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile and hypersonic gliding aircraft.
In much of the West, Putin's rhetoric about missile defense is dismissed as "paranoia." According to Burns, "in Russia, especially in Putin's inner circle, there are many hardliners in the field of security. Even if they just build a Walt Disney theme park in Poland, they will already consider it something threatening Russia's interests." Jim Townsend, a former employee of the US Department of Defense and now a senior researcher at the Center for a New American Security, argues that NATO missile defense systems are designed to deal with a small number of potential Iranian weapons, and not with Moscow's much more powerful missile weapons. It will take huge investments in new facilities to cope with the Russian missile potential. Although Poland and other Eastern European countries would support a change in NATO's missile defense concept, any plan to refocus missile defense on Russia would not receive consensus among other members of the bloc. Even after the start of the Russian missile defense in Ukraine, Moscow will strike back if any attempt is made to reorient European missile defense to it.
However, this did not prevent Latvia from appealing to NATO in May to approve the deployment of a missile defense system covering the Baltic states. This request is clearly related not so much to some additional protection that such a system can potentially provide from Russian (or Iranian) missiles, as to the desire of the Balts to increase the number of American troops in the region. The deployment of new US forces here helps them strengthen their morale and is perceived as a form of insurance against a possible Russian attack. Thus, NATO's missile defense is a means by which the United States demonstrates its commitment to the security of its allies in Central and Eastern Europe.
The same logic applies equally to the Middle East amid concerns about the US withdrawal from the region. During the Obama era, Washington unsuccessfully tried to convince the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council to integrate missile defense systems. While countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar have purchased missile defense systems from the United States, including Patriot missile batteries and the THAAD high-altitude missile defense system to repel a possible nuclear threat from Iran, rivalry between the Gulf States has prevented the creation of a comprehensive missile defense system here. The intensification of Iran's missile and "unmanned" activity in the region, including its strikes on Saudi oil refineries in 2019, has somewhat increased the likelihood of creating a joint air defense alliance.
Nevertheless, in the summer of 2021, the United States withdrew its missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries, deploying missile defense capabilities against the threat from China and Russia. This once again raised the question of the reliability of the United States as an ally. Washington's interest in funding an integrated early warning system in the Middle East is a means of building confidence in US commitments to regional allies and may help dispel concerns about their withdrawal from the Middle East. The technology provided is made exclusively in the United States and will help ensure that American personnel remain in the region.
Of course, there is a significant difference between the situations in Europe and the Middle East. An integrated air defense system in the Middle East will require recent adversaries to share confidential intelligence information. Saudi Arabia has already made it clear that it will not agree to normalize relations with Israel if the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not resolved. So it may take many years before the political conditions for a fully integrated defense system are created here, not to mention a formal security alliance.
Moreover, Israel sees Iran as a mortal enemy who seeks to destroy the Jewish state. The Gulf states, although concerned about the destabilizing activity of Tehran, prefer dialogue with it to the continuation of confrontation. The Biden administration is seeking to integrate Israel's air defense systems with the air defense systems of the Gulf states through the development of a network of radars, early warning systems and interceptors. Israel clearly benefits from sensors deployed in the Persian Gulf, which provides it with the earliest possible warning of a potential Iranian attack. But Gulf states like the UAE may be wary of incurring Iran's wrath through open military cooperation with Israel.
Washington's promotion of a regional defense partnership has a broader purpose beyond demonstrating its commitments to regional allies. It is also intended to put pressure on Israel to prevent a possible military attack on Iran, which is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. Obviously, the United States does not want to be drawn into a regional war. For many years, US officials have stated that American participation in the financing, development and deployment of missile defense systems is intended not only to protect allies in the event of a conflict, but primarily to deter them in terms of the unilateral use of military force. For the Obama administration, cooperation with Israel in the field of missile defense — the development and financing of the Strela-3 and Iron Dome systems — was not only a way to support its key ally, but also a means to reduce the likelihood of a regional war.
As the last few days of fighting between Israel and the "Palestinian Islamic Jihad" have shown(the organization is recognized as a terrorist organization, its activities on the territory of the Russian Federation are prohibited — Approx. InoSMI), this train of thought is generally correct. It is reported that the Israeli "Iron Dome" intercepted 97% of the rockets fired from Gaza at Israel by the Palestinians. This successful performance of this missile defense system almost neutralized the Palestinian rocket fire, which significantly helped eliminate the need for a ground military operation and quickly put an end to hostilities. It is no coincidence that Biden noted that the United States is "proud of its support for the Israeli Iron Dome."
This is not the first time that missile defense has had its stabilizing effect. The former head of the US missile defense, Pippi DeBiaso, claimed that the transfer of American Patriot missile defense systems to Israel played such a role during the Gulf War in 1991. Although Patriot missiles did not intercept Iraqi Scud missiles very successfully, many believed that they helped convince Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir not to get involved in the war waged by the United States against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The presence of American troops in Israel to activate the Patriot missile defense was also important for strengthening the morale of Israelis.
From this point of view, the States of the region that share Israel's fears of the threat posed by Iran, which possesses nuclear weapons, will benefit greatly. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have ties with Iran that they need to preserve. However, they may conclude that an integrated missile defense system, especially if it involves U.S. forces as a means of boosting morale and potential deterrence power, is a blessing that can reduce the likelihood of a dangerous regional war.
Author: Azriel Bermant is a senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations in Prague.
