Deterrence Shield In The Middle East

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:39:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Remember this? Look what's happening now - U.S. and Gulf Allies Pursue a Missile Shield Against Iranian Attack:

The United States and its Arab allies are knitting together a regional missile defense system across the Persian Gulf to protect cities, oil refineries, pipelines and military bases from an Iranian attack, according to government officials and public documents.

When Hillary Clinton proposed this idea in 2008, I wrote:

This is excellent strategic thinking, providing a great alternative to armed intervention in Iran and allowing for hard headed and rational diplomacy with Iran on the question of nuclear weapons. Personally, I would LOVE to get a reaction from Barack Obama to this statement from Hillary Clinton.

President Obama has now reacted as he certainly must approve of this policy. Anyone want to revisit their thinking from 2008?

< An Unnecessary Lesson | Thursday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Deterrence Shield In The Middle East | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Not me... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by kdog on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:05:21 PM EST

bad idea then, bad idea now. Sinful misallocation of resources.

We have way too many problems here at home that require our resources...we're really gonna spend all that cash to protect other countries on the longshot Iran wants to commit national suicide by starting a war? Sh*t's gotta stop...our priorities are all f*cked up.

I get where you're coming from (none / 0) (#7)
by CST on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:31:22 PM EST

but it's still a lot better than a "pre-emptive" war (ahem, starting our own war). And based on history, I'm not really comfortable saying anyone starting a war is that long of a shot.

It's not like wars are rare. Unfortunately. If we can start thinking about them more defensively than offensively I would call that progress of a sort.


: If those are the only two choices... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:46:03 PM EST

expensive missile shield vs. deadly & expensive pre-emptive aggressive war...yeah, go with the missile shield.
But much like our political system, there are more than two choices, despite the fact the powers that be bend over backwards to convince us there are only two choices.
Who besides the pre-emptive strike and missile shield crews thinks Iran is gonna launch missiles? It makes no sense for them...attack Israel, Saudi Arabia, or the oil fields we depend on, they'll get blown off the face of the earth, occupied, prepared for Starbucks franchises...we have proven we're that violent & crazy, sh*t you don't even have to launch missiles.

Longshot... (none / 0) (#14)
by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:42:22 PM EST

...I don't know about that. But damn, when did we just except this responsibility, protecting the Middle East/Europe from Iran. Let them figure out how to deal with it. We got bigger problems.

For a missile defense to be effective it has to be complete, no gaps. The idea that we can get all these nations surrounding Iran to cooperate and stay together seems rather hopeful, especially when you consider that part of the defense will be protect Israel.

I would also think the technology would be very helpful in finding a way to purge the defense. Nations that might be 'allies' today won't be tomorrow, and giving them this kind of technology is pretty much the formula for creating another Iran.

And who foots the bill, not like I don't know, but do we really need to be funding another venture that will surely backfire.


This is a regional defense (none / 0) (#16)
by lousy1 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:51:25 PM EST

Comprised of networked defensive islands controlled by Mideast countries.

We can do even more to defend the gulf through cooperation on ballistic missile defense," she said during a session in March of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

No defense is perfect - nor does it need to be.


Well it Actually Does (none / 0) (#19)
by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:30:04 PM EST

And she is addressing those nations, but those aren't really the ones I would think Iran is going to hit.

That list is the attendees, not all the nations that will be involved.


: This system is not going to stops an Iranian nuke (none / 0) (#20)
by lousy1 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:30:11 PM EST

particularly a regional on which could be delivered by other means - a low flying suicide jet or cruise missile perhaps as well as by more cover methods. The article does not mention defense against nukes.
What a theater system can do, is mitigate a rain of chemical or conventional intermediate range ballistic missiles (like scuds) from attacking regional targets. Electronic cooperation of all allies in the area makes the system more effective.
No defensive system is ever perfect. That does not invalidate its use.

Iran ain't launching missiles at nobody.... (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:06:46 PM EST

if they decide to blow sh&t up in Israel or S.A. or wherever, they'll fund a terrorist outfit to do it, lo-fi & cheap & then can deny any involvement.

Their weapons program only makes sense as a deterrent to a possible foreign invasion/occupation. They can never catch up to the arsenal Israel has to even think about a real "traditional" war....they'd get smoked and they know it.


: It may get short shrift, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by NYShooter on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:04:12 PM EST

But there must be something in the Iranian DNA that has kept them from being the aggressor, attacking any country for more than 2500 years. And, in the hair trigger, violence drenched history of the Middle East, that`s quite a statement,
It must mean something. What, I don't know.

How? (none / 0) (#1)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 08:47:29 AM EST

Just how is a "Missile Shield Against Iranian Attack" going to stop a nuke delivered by ship?

I think the problem for many (none / 0) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:34:31 AM EST

Was a disbelief that such a technology existed or could be created. But I'm told that the technology exploded, we have graduated far beyond hit and miss being able to intercept scuds.

So Hillary Clinton was (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:14:00 AM EST

a forward thinker. Sigh.


Often she is (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:31:37 AM EST

I didn't take the initial idea seriously though because it sounded like Raygun's Star Wars. That was followed by our hit and miss record protecting Israel from scud missile attacks. I was about results that really work, not policy suggestions that I wanted to hear or not hear.


Sigh. (none / 0) (#21)
by Addison on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:24:10 PM EST

If only Barack Obama had the wisdom to put her in a position to positively affect world conflicts. Sigh.

I should note that I think BTD is all wrong on this. The nuke could still be delivered in myriad ways via the ground or sea. This would be for show. The small chance that such a thing would prevent an Israeli/US strike is not worth the huge price tag.


: These system are being put in place (none / 0) (#22)
by lousy1 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:51:41 PM EST

to facilitate an Israeli, US <andPan Arabic?>strike. They do so by addressing the reservations and concerns of ME countries that would play at least a supporting logistical role.
Whether these systems will add further pressure and thus eventually cause Iran to back down or are actually used in war is yet to be determined

This shield is to (none / 0) (#5)
by lousy1 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:17:41 AM EST

minimize the effects of a simple ( Non Maneuverable )ballistic missile attack.

Its primary purpose is to mitigate against conventional and chemical weapons. These deployments may be preparatory and anticipating a regional military engagement with Iran.

In the context of a nuclear war any ABM system modifies the calculus of action. A potential launcher becomes less assured that that a first strike will negate another nations retaliatory capacity. It also makes the prospect of a demonstration strike ( a single missile for example ) less predictable. These are basic tenants of the MAD doctrine that has dominated the post WII era.

In the case of Iran it is not established that the fear of mutual destruction is an overriding, strategic consideration.

In Iran's case other delivery methods than ballistic missle are probable more practicle

In the case of Iran (none / 0) (#9)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:42:10 PM EST

it is not established that they are suicidal. A very well-founded fear of destruction is the overriding strategic consideration underlying their nuclear program.

Iraq and North Korea-- compare and contrast.


Thats a possible Iranian motivation (none / 0) (#13)
by lousy1 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:17:15 PM EST

So is a hyper - religious belief of destruction followed by redemption.

If North Korea was worth the effort, its nuclear program would just serve to insure that the country was reduced to ashes.

Its chemical (and biological) weapons stash is more troubling.

I doubt Iran will be allowed to deploy nuclear weapons. It is not a unilateral US decision. Oil is a strategic imperative for many nations. The ideological ferment of Iran garners little world wide sympathy.


I agree with you (none / 0) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:36:31 PM EST

That it isn't a US unilateral decision, the parties are free to do this without us too.


That's funny (none / 0) (#34)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:45:27 PM EST

Destruction followed by redemption is a Christian thing. I'm aware of no such philosophy or religious belief among the Iranians.


: Its the a tenant of the Shia faith (none / 0) (#35)
by lousy1 on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 11:30:31 AM EST

Iran News
Return of the Mahdi
I am not an expert but there is a debate about Ahmadinejad's commitment to this idea. His public statements are troubling.

"Ahmadinejad has stated that this chaos must take place before the Mahdi can come on the scene," Cantrell said.
Shiite eschatology says the Madhi's second coming will be marked by apocalyptic times. Wars, famines and floods will ravage the earth. Followed by judgement day and a battle between good and evil.
Christ.

So Reagan was right? (none / 0) (#8)
by diogenes on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:40:04 PM EST

When Reagan proposed his "Star Wars" missile shield in the 1980's, all you liberals laughed at him.
Of course, if a missile shield works 90% of the time and the Iranians send ten bombs, who wants to be hit by a single bomb?

As opposed to (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by lousy1 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:42:35 PM EST

being hit by 10?


Reagan's problem was (none / 0) (#11)
by observed on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:51:35 PM EST

science fiction and a waste of money.


Still a waste of money... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:07:08 PM EST

if no longer pure science fiction. Still no guarantees the multi-billion dollar gadget will work on the one in a million chance the other countries in the M.E. will need it.

Reminds me of the airport, expensive toys for the illusion of safety.


Why do you assume that Saudi Arabia (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:38:53 PM EST

and the United Arab Emirates aren't paying for anything and it's all us? Even freakier, we didn't create this technology, Israel did. It isn't any sort of reflection of a healthier shared goal of peace in your mind considering this in its entirety?


Shared goal of peace? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by kdog on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:02:35 AM EST

Good one...if only that were the case. Suspicion does not bring the peace.

If there is a shared goal, it's accumulating more power and dollars.


Life is full of suspicion kdog (none / 0) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:53:20 AM EST

That is part of the human condition and our survival programming we are born with. I think this is a very good thing. Safety makes people saner, saner people make better decisions.


Agree to disagree... (none / 0) (#27)
by kdog on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:26:15 AM EST

I think reallocating all the missile shield money into say a microloan program for impoverished middle eaterners would be infinitely more effective at winning some peace in that region.

Sh*t, airdropping blue jeans and rock-n-roll mix tapes over Iran would be more effective. Kuchinich's Dept. of Peace type initiatives.


But you and I could do all that (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:37:38 AM EST

We could stand on the border and chuck jeans across during our next vacation.


BJ Sessions? (none / 0) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:38:46 AM EST

Oh My


Sorry kdog (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:56:56 AM EST

Accidentally posted that last comment here. Was listening to the MOT BTD show and apparently Jeff Sessions' name plate on his D.C. office door used to say B.J. Sessions and that's just too funny to ignore.


: In a related note (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by lousy1 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 02:10:30 PM EST

CNN reports that thousands of Iranian soldiers are throwing down their weapons and trekking expectantly to the Iraqi border.
Never underestimate the power of a wardrobe.

: I concur... (none / 0) (#33)
by kdog on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 02:29:17 PM EST

dude musta had a line around the block, with a BJ Sessions sign on the door, in that town;)

There is, in my view, (none / 0) (#18)
by KeysDan on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:27:22 PM EST

more to the strategy than meets the eye. Iran is the organizing menace to share and integrate security capabilities with an aim toward unifying the oil-rich and politically labile Gulf states. NATO was formed as a bulwark against the USSR, but also, as a unifying force among its member nations. Similarly, multi-lateral security initiatives of the Gulf states will require cooperation for the needed "inter-operability," that, in turn, may serve as a coordinated defense against not only an external menace, but internal dissent.