Free Markets, Free People

Did Obama Trade Missile Defense For Iranian Sanctions?

Regardless of the reason, he’s left both Poland and the Czech Republic very unhappy with the announcement today that the US is “scrapping” the promised missile defense shield in Eastern Europe:

The former Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, said: “This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence. It puts us in a position wherein we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat.”

The Polish deputy foreign minister, Andrzej Kremer, saidthat Warsaw had heard from different sources there were “serious chances” the anti-missile system would not be deployed.

Russia, of course, is sure to be quite happy with the plan, although it hasn’t yet reacted to the news.

Mr Obama, who is due to meet the Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev next week in New York, says he wants better ties with Russia so that the two former Cold War foes can co-operate on Afghanistan and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.

He may also have been reassured by Moscow’s growing willingness to discuss further sanctions against Iran.

Not exactly a sign that the US is a solid and dependable ally to the former eastern satellites of Russia. It has been interesting to watch the foreign policy of this administration develop. Thus far, it has certainly made all sorts of overtures to those we haven’t exactly had great relationships with – but for the most part, as in this case, those overtures have come at the expense of existing relationships with supposed “allies”.

For the 600th time – Russia is not our friend and never will be.   Cooperation in various areas is fine but it shouldn’t be bought at the expense of our allies’ security or pursued from a position of weakness. While the missile defense shield may have only been a token defense, to those it was promised, it meant a solid commitment from the US to their defense. Withdrawing it without notice makes the US much less of a reliable ally in their eyes and may see them trying to seek some sort of accommodation with Russia now. If the intent of US foreign policy to this point was to keep them out of Russia’s orbit, this sort of move is sure to force them more into it.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

28 Responses to Did Obama Trade Missile Defense For Iranian Sanctions?

  • Can you think of any ally that will now trust us? As you said, Russia is not, and never will be, our friend. They will NOT help us with Iran! I am sure they are laughing like bunch of hyenas in Moscow and Tehran right now.

    We have an utter fool in the White House and they know it. (I wouldn’t want to be Taiwan right now.)

  • I guess we didn’t want Honduras to think that they were special, or anything.

  • It sounds more like the famous baseball trades “for a player to be named later.”

    Obama comes from a camp ideologically opposed to missile defense, and apparently from an even older camp that trades Czech security for momentary “peace in our time.”

    He doesn’t know what he’s doing, but that’s so across the board with him that it’s clearly racist of me to pick on a foreign policy decision.

    As I’ve said, this is a bad faith presidency, and now the Poles and Czechs know it, too.

  • Those countries stuck their necks out in support of this plan. They’ve been thrown under the bus and the forces in those countries that want to draw under the influence of Russia just become more powerful there.

  • I’m sure Erb will be here soon to opine how what a great thing this is.

    At any rate, if you accept the premise that OCarter killed missle defense in exchange for future Iran sanctions, you have to come to the conclusion that they now consider Iran a bigger threat that previous.

    Otherwise why go for sanctions now?

    Israel may attack soon. God help us with this Pres. at the helm

  • And you know what’s especially bold about this? 70 years ago today, the Soviets invaded Poland. That is awesome symbolism, folks.

  • “Did Obama Trade Missile Defense For Iranian Sanctions? ”

    Well I hope he got something out of it, I just don’t see why we should even give him that much credit.

    Can the Poles and Czechs hang tight ’til 2012?

  • It’s official; the USA is now “the former superpower”, in the process of joining the ranks of Britian and France as has-beens. Allies and former allies are now learning the lesson that we cannot be relied upon to provide any meaningful defensive umbrella against gathering threats. The world just became a lot more dangerous.

    “Israel may attack soon.”

    And there is not a lot that Saint Barry will be able to do about it at the current rate. The million-plus Russian imigrants who are now citizens will persuade national leadership into closer association with Putain’s sphere of influence should the US issue to “strong” a “condemnation”.

  • We can’t afford to be building meaningless missile defense systems for tiny countries. If there is to be a missile defense, it should be discussed Europe-wide and have broad buy in and shared burdens. It’s not like Russia has even remote plans to somehow invade Poland and the Czech republic. The idea to build this was wasteful and unnecessary, the US is giving up nothing of value to us (but we are saving money). The German press is generally greeting this, and noting this is part of a series of major foreign policy changes Obama is making to completely undo much of what his predecessor did. If so, I hope he keeps it up!

    • Yes, why, it’s preposterous, the very idea that Poland or the Czech Republic would be invaded or otherwise threatened, blackmailed, or controlled.

      There’s no precendent in history for anything like that.

      Plus, they are indeed small countries of little consequence.

      Score another one for Dr. Erb!

    • It’s not like Russia has remote plans to somehow invade Poland and the Czech republic.


      If they didn’t they sure will now.

      Erb, who do you pledge your allegience to?

      • “Erb, who do you pledge your allegience to?”


      • If you think Russia is going to attack Poland, you’re on crack. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long time. They are still part of NATO, you know. And Obama has simply turned this into a European issue for discussion rather than cutting out the west europeans like Bush did.

        My allegiance is to the ideals of human rights, freedom, and moral principles. I have no allegiance to any state, nationalism is a kind of perversion in my opinion.

    • Erb’s ignorance meter pegs out again. The missile defense system was not just for Poland and the Czech Republic, but for U.S. and Allied forces throughout Europe.
      And then he doubles-down with the hypocritical claim that we lose nothing of value by giving in to Russia and dismissing these two countries; after years of claiming that we need to be pragmatic and that we need all the friends we can get since we’re not a superpower anymore.
      Even if Obama could prove that the missile system AND the trust of other nations were worthless; the pragmatic thing would have been to negotiate it’s demise.

      • the pragmatic thing would have been to negotiate it’s demise

        Good point. Not only why was it done – why was it done the way it was done?

      • Ignorance? No, he’s spreading disinformation.

        He’s a willful “useful idiot”.

      • We can’t afford to continue trying to be an imperial power. This boondoggle was a waste of money we simply can’t afford. We are going to have to massively cut our foreign entanglements. Also, to think the US didn’t negotiate this or got nothing from doing so is very naive. Deals were made, that much is obvious.

        • Many times you’ve claimed that you use reason, but it’s obvious you’ve never learned the basic precepts of logical thinking.

          “We can’t afford to be building meaningless missile defense systems for tiny countries.”

          Rule of logic #1: When the initial assumption your argument is based on is shown to be false, then the entire argument is invalidated and any conclusions drawn from it are worthless. (Not to say that they are disproven, but they are as well proven as a claim that mermaids exist on Europa)

          Conjecture from a habitual liar is not a basis for a reasonable discussion, actual scholars do research so they have a basis in fact.

    • Obama’s plan is to go to a more expensive system (using CGs or DDGs equiped with Aegis) that will not protect the US. So we will get less, but it will cost more.

      However, Obama will be able to appease the Russians, and Erb’s in laws will be happy. So someone wins in this.

  • Why on earth should ANY country EVER trust the United States again? This sorry episode has done more than just underscore the idiocy of TAO; it has fully demonstrated how capricious our foreign policy has become. It used to be that Republicans and democrats were in considerable agreement on at least some foreign policy issues. With the demise of the Soviet Union and the rise of the rabid left in our country, those days are no more. So, any country can expect that, if it reaches some sort of agreement with the United States, the agreement may become completely null (and, indeed, may be changed 180 degrees) if the other party gains control of the White House / Congress.

    Working with the United States is becoming like working with a schizo. And, in the present case, a mean-spirited, idiot schizo.

    Oh, and has anybody noticed how this is being pitched by MiniTru? TAO is cancelling Bush’s missile defense plan. The obvious message is that, since it’s a brainchild of the hated Bush, it’s not only acceptable but commendable for TAO to cancel it. The less obvious message is that the United States doesn’t enter into international agreements; individual presidents do, and those agreements may become null and void the instant a new president takes office.

    Maybe we can get out of Roosevelt’s United Nations charter? Or Jimmuh’s Pananma Canal surrender?

    • “Why on earth should ANY country EVER trust the United States again?”

      Excellent question. The answer, they shouldn’t. If I were another former ally of the USA I would be looking to make new alliances VERY quickly.

  • The US should send a clear message: our economy is in crisis, we can’t afford to defend the world. The Europeans can defend themselves, they have nuclear weapons, they are better off and far more populus than Russia, we’re not necessary. Most Europeans don’t even feel there is a threat, and believe that our bumbling on the world stage during the hated Bush years has actually made matters more difficult. You guys act like the US is the same kind of power it was twenty years ago. We’ve fallen from that role, and given our economy, the fall is going to continue at a fast pace. It’s over. We’re not the major world power you guys seem to think we still are. China could dismantle our economy with a few moves, and have a diversified enough consumer base outside the US to handle the cost. Latin American states are starting to recognize they can turn against “the empire” as they call us.

    The world, and the US, is undergoing a fundamental and dramatic transformation. I think you guys are whistling through the graveyard, not comprehending just how profound this is — and how weakened the US has become, especially from actions undertaken in the last ten or so years.

    • Russia has a nuclear arsenal, Scott. It doesn’t have to attack Poland.

      There is nothing “imperial” about missile defense.

      Russia’s utter weakness is what makes it dangerous. A strong country wouldn’t consort with Iran or Chavez, but would, like Iraq and Iran outsource its more dynamic geopolitical yearnings to terrorists or terror states. The KGB, which effectively controls Russia now, has no problems of conscience with terrorism, the modern variant of which it essentially invented through the PLO.

      The symbolism of the U.S. backing out on Poland and the Czech Republic is in itself an act of appeasement and a signal of weakness.

      And it’s suited to your taste because you want the U.S. to show weakness and to appease.

      You think that you’re getting what you want. But you don’t have a clue about what this will bring. Here’s a summary of what it will bring: Nothing good.

  • Screwy unclear sentence of mine above:

    “Russia’s utter weakness is what makes it dangerous. A strong country wouldn’t consort with Iran or Chavez, but would, like Iraq and Iran outsource its more dynamic geopolitical yearnings to terrorists or terror states.”

    After “but would” it conveys a literally opposite meaning from what I intended. The “but would” should read something like “but an utterly weak country would, like Iraq and Iran…”

    In case anyone was actually wondering.

  • once again…no weapons of mass destruction…again..?

  • I hope this the right move in the right direction for our country.