Missile Defense Site Compromise Discussed
By Michael Bruno 
Two key leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) pressed the top combatant commander in charge of NATO and U.S. military forces in Europe March 24 on whether a compromise with Russia over a missile defense deterrent against Iran could work.
SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and strategic forces subcommittee chair Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) queried Army Gen. Bantz Craddock — head of U.S. European Command and, by tradition, NATO’s supreme allied commander — over whether a U.S.-Russian partnership would deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, especially an intercontinental ballistic missile. Levin called the idea, including one scenario coupling Russian radar with U.S. and NATO theater-based interceptors and command-and-control (C2) systems, a “game-changer” in dissuading Iran.
Craddock did not overtly disagree. But he stressed that the trans-Atlantic alliance has found missile defense to be strategically important, thus protection is necessary across the membership. He also said that the proposed Third Site serves as a “catalyst” for missile defense in NATO, and that not building it could leave the alliance without a “first shot” against the perceived Iranian ICBM threat, expected to materialize around the middle of next decade.
Theater-based systems may provide more protection for southern NATO members like Turkey than Ground-based Midcourse Defense alone, he continued, but the long-range interceptors were still integral to the current, layered design of missile defense. The explicit plan has been for the United States to provide the long-range end of the spectrum while European members focused on the medium- and short-range defense developments.
“We have to find a way…but it has to be addressed given the fact that we’ve decided there is a missile threat,” Craddock said.
But Craddock, who is retiring this year, also seemed to acknowledge that an operational U.S.-NATO-Russian deal might be able to offer enough deterrence to convince Iran not to pursue such a weapon. “Any time there is a bilateral approach to a threat that has not occurred yet,” an adversary has to take notice, he said.
As Craddock’s prepared testimony noted, Iran already possesses ballistic missiles that can reach parts of Europe and is developing missiles that can reach most of the continent, as well as Israel and other allied Middle East locations. The proposed Third Site includes a midcourse tracking radar in the Czech Republic, 10 long-range interceptor missiles in Poland (two-stage versions of the interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California), and command and control systems.
Later in the day, Craddock told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) that there is a split in the alliance over the new direction in U.S. strategy brought by the rise of the Obama administration in Washington. “Some of the NATO members are looking cautiously at what we’re doing,” the commander said, while “others are looking favorably.”
HASC ranking Republican John McHugh (N.Y.) said at that hearing that the United States should take a “NATO-first” policy in re-approaching Russia, which “would make clear to our NATO allies that U.S. bilateral engagement with Russia will not foster collective insecurity amongst our allies.”
Photo: DoD
