Closing Velocity

Iran To Russia: Don't Welch On Those S-300 Missiles

S-300 on parade in Red Square

As the chances for an Israeli airstrike on its burgeoning nuclear weapons program increase, Iran's leaders are getting antsy:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - A senior Iranian military official complained publicly on Friday over Russia's failure to deliver a missile defence system that Washington does not want Iran to have.

Moscow, which is under Western pressure to distance itself from Tehran, has not followed through on proposals to supply high-grade S300 air defence missiles to the Islamic state.

"We are unhappy with the Russian friends up north," said Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces and a member of Iran's Supreme National Security Council in comments carried on state news agency IRNA.

"Why don't the defensive S300 missiles get permission to be sent for the purpose of Iran's defence, as agreed between the two countries? It has been more than six months since they should have been delivered to Iran by Russia."

He added: "Won't the Russian strategists take into consideration Iran's geopolitical importance in the security of this country?"

In Iranian state media, Firouzabadi goes further in castigating the Russians:

Firouzabadi questioned Moscow's motivation for the delay, adding that under a contract signed between the two countries, the Russian government was expected to supply Iran with the system aimed at boosting the country's defensive capabilities.

"The delivery is more than six months overdue," the top general said, urging Russia to expedite the process of delivery.

Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Wednesday that Russia had a 'contractual obligation' to provide Iran with the system.

"We have made a deal with the Kremlin to buy S-300 defense missiles," he said, referring to a contract signed between Tehran and Moscow in 2007.

"We don't think Russian officials would want to be seen in the world as contract violators," he added.

Awwww, that's cute --- Islamofascist Iran lecturing Putin's Russia on the finer points of contract law and capitalism.

Meanwhile as Iran screeches about its right to defend itself against Israeli aggression, its terrorist proxy Hezbollah complains about Israel's own defensive posture:

Nasrallah also lashed out at a major missile defense exercise staged recently by American and Israeli forces to test technology that would protect Israel from a missile attack. U.S. military officials have described it as the most complete air missile defense system done anywhere in the world.

"The Americans are coming, for the first time in decades and perhaps the first time since Israel's existence, to be a field partner in any confrontation that Israel might impose on Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iran," he said.

Recap:

Russian missile defense systems in Iran? Awesome.

American-Israeli missile defense systems in Israel? How dare they.

Biden: SM-3 Interceptors To Be Installed In Poland

Former Redzikowo Airbase, Poland

At the very same shuttered airbase that would have housed the siloed Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs) originally planned:

Biden was presenting a revamped U.S. missile shield replacing a scrapped Bush-era project that would have placed 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to intercept long-range missiles from Iran. His one-day visit to Bucharest was part of a swing through eastern Europe designed to reassure Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic — all staunch U.S. allies — that America's commitment to the region remains strong.

The Obama plan would include SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles at a former air base in the Polish town of Redzikowo, the same site that was to host U.S. missile interceptors in underground silos under the Bush plan.

How does this exact same geographic deployment of missile interceptors not irritate the Russians? Easy:

Moscow perceives the new plan as less threatening because it would not initially involve interceptors capable of shooting down Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles, experts say.

Sounds nice, but two things jump out:

1.  While these initial SM-3's can't down Russian ICBMs, ummmm, they also can't down Iranian ICBMs. McKittrick's broken record time: the original Euro BMD plan was designed to defend the eastern seaboard of the US against ICBMs launched from the Middle East. Obama's new plan does not have this capability. But... but... it will, assert the new plan backers, those next generation SM-3's will be able to defend the US against ICBMs! Really? Interesting, because

2.  Which do you think the Russians would be more concerned about, ten (ten!) highly-visible, immobile & siloed GBI's in Poland or several hundred SM-3 Block IIB interceptors parked in mobile launchers on land and at sea in and around Europe? Interceptors specifically tasked with countering massive raid size ICBM attacks?

Don't get me wrong --- I look forward to the new SM-3's, and the more the better. But I don't agree with the wisdom to scrap the GBIs. Our missile defense doctrine has always been to have a layered defense with multiple platforms able to engage threats at all the different phases of ballistic flight. Stripping out GBIs from this layered approach is a mistake.

Juniper Cobra 2009 Underway: US & Israel Conduct Massive Missile Defense Drills

Aegis BMD Destroyer USS Decatur (DDG-73) at Haifa, Israel

Delayed a week, Juniper Cobra 10 is now in full swing in Israel:

TEL AVIV — A massive air defence drill under way in Israel will join Israeli and US systems to create the world's most advanced anti-missile umbrella to protect the Jewish state, officials said on Thursday.

The Juniper Cobra 10 exercises, the fifth in a series of joint air defence drills between the allies, began this week and comes amid heightened tension between Israel and arch-foe Iran.

Some 1,000 US soldiers will take part in the two-week exercise combining Israeli and US systems to "create the world's most advanced air defence system to protect our citizens and homes from attack," the commander of Israel's Air Defence Corps, Brigadier General Doron Gavish, told reporters.

Unlike past Juniper Cobras, this one will employ the widest spectrum of missile defense assets yet, including the US's Aegis BMD ships, Patriot PAC-3 batteries, THAAD batteries, the mobile X-Band radar currently stationed in the Negev, and Israel's own Arrow 2 batteries. Interoperability between allied systems is the main goal.

While planned well over two years ago, this iteration of Juniper Cobra is seen as an early indicator of how Obama's new European missile defense plan will take shape:

In this series of exercises we continue to advance our understanding of the art and the science of ballistic ."missile defense," Rear Admiral John Richardson, the U.S. officer overseeing Juniper Cobra, told reporters in Tel Aviv.

"This exercise is not directly related to recent announcements about ballistic missile defense in Europe, but the lessons and the insights that we gain from this exercise will certainly relate to developing that capability."

Admiral Richardson also goes on the dispel the scuttlebutt of the US leaving its missile defense hardware behind in Israel after Juniper Cobra is finished:

None of the American materiel used in the drill will remain in Israel after it winds up in mid-November, they said. But the United States does have a small military garrison at a strategic radar, X-band, stationed in Israel's southern Negev desert.

"The Israel Defense Force can defend Israel alone," Gavish said. "But it is good to know that U.S. capabilities are available."

.

US Considers Using UKRAINIAN Missile Defense Radars

Yep, given Obama's recent prostration before the Russians, this will get far:

KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine has begun talks with the United States on the possibility of Washington using information gathered by its radars, Interfax Ukraine cited Kiev's envoy as saying on Thursday.

The news is likely to irk Russia, which is highly sensitive to any hint of U.S. military partnership with former Soviet republics.

Washington last week denied it wanted to station U.S. radar systems in Ukraine, after President Barack Obama scrapped a planned missile shield based in central Europe.

Just last week, Washington and Kiev had to furiously backpeddle when US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Alexander Vershbow first let the cat out of the bag:

WASHINGTON — The United States on Friday sought to reassure Russia that Washington had no plans to deploy radars or weaponry in Ukraine as part of its new missile defense plan.

The Defense Department was forced to clarify its plans after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov voiced concern over the new missile shield and said a report that Ukraine might be part of the system was "rather unexpected."

US Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow had told reporters on Thursday that Ukraine and other countries have expressed an interest in hosting a radar site for the shield.

But the Pentagon said: "He (Vershbow) did not make any reference to the stationing of US radars or any other missile defense systems on the territory of Ukraine, and no such proposal has been made to the government of Ukraine."

Granted, this news got screaming headlines in the Ukraine and Russia last week, but that was because it appeared the US was simply going to set up its own radars --- with its own personnel --- on Russia's doorstep. That's not the case:

The announcement made headlines in Ukrainian media. Some analysts and politicians were quick to point out that the Ukrainian constitution forbids hosting foreign military facilities. President Viktor Yushchenko was quick to say that the US never made any suggestions on those lines.

Now it appears that, rather than hosting an American radar, Ukraine will offer one it already has to become part of the system. It currently possesses two long-range radars, one in the capital of Crimea, Sevastopol, and another one in the city Mukachevo in western Ukraine. [ed --- see map above]

On the one hand, since Russia itself has repeatedly offered the US use of two of its own missile defense radars at Gabala, Azerbaijan and Armavir (instead of the one planned for Brdy, Czech Republic), one would think Russia would have no problem with the US utilizing a similar arrangement with the Ukraine. On the other hand, one would be dreadfully wrong.

Lest the aura of Nobel prizes have temporarily blinded you, let me remind you that Russia just successfully cowed Obama into giving up long-planned missile defense sites in the territories of two stalwart NATO Allies, the Czech Republic and Poland. Ukraine was a former Soviet Republic (not a satellite), is a NATO aspirant (not a member), and oh yeah, home to the frickin' Russian Black Sea Fleet. Yup, Putin will have zero problem with this Ukrainian radar scheme.

In the meantime, the Ukrainians are enjoying this small opportunity to poke the bear in the eye:

[Ukrainian Ambassador to the US] Shamshur suggested Russia had missed its chance to use information from Ukrainian radars. Russia canceled a post-Soviet radar data sharing deal last year, complaining the installations in Ukraine were outdated.

"We are also talking about the question of using our defense radars across Ukraine's territory, which, as you all know, Russia has declined to use," Shamshur was cited as saying.

The Ukrainians are playing a very dangerous game here, and in an apparent attempt to soothe eastern European fears over his recent retreat, Obama could also provoke Moscow much more intensely than the old Bush missile defense plan ever did.

Indeed, to appreciate the gravity of the Ukrainian situtation, be sure to check out this must read article on the poisonous climate of Russian-Ukrainian relations:

In August, Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, gave his Ukrainian counterpart, Viktor Yushchenko, an unprecedented diplomatic mugging. In a seething letter, and subsequent video message, Medvedev reprimanded Yushchenko for his "anti-Russian" stance. He told him that, as far as Russia was concerned, the pro-western Yushchenko was now a non-person.

After reeling off a list of grievances, Medvedev said he would not be sending an ambassador to Kiev. He also said he was reviewing Russia and Ukraine's 1997 friendship treaty – a hint that Moscow may no longer respect Ukraine's sovereign borders. The message was blunt: whoever wins Ukraine's presidential election in January has to accept Russia's veto over the country's strategic direction.

And what is ground zero of all this Russian animosity? Why, the Crimea --- site of one of those Ukrainian missile defense radars:

The flashpoint, Gorbulin says, is Crimea, the lush peninsula beloved by 19th-century Russian writers and Soviet tourists. It is Ukraine's only Russian-majority province. It is also the home of Russia's Black Sea fleet – anchored just around the coast from Yalta in the historic port of Sevastopol. Under the terms of a lease agreement with Ukraine, Russia is supposed to vacate the base in 2017. But it doesn't want to.

In recent weeks, pro-Kremlin newspapers have been speculating that Crimea might soon be "reunited" with mother Russia, solving the fleet issue. The best-selling Komsomolskaya Pravda even printed a map showing Europe in 2015. The Russian Federation had swallowed Crimea, together with eastern and central Ukraine. Ukraine still existed, but it was a small chunk of territory around the western town of Lviv.

Georgia is peanuts compared to the Ukraine ... especially now that the Russians are considering nuclear first-strikes against neighbors even during a conventional war.

With the humiliating betrayal of allies coupled with this clueless thwacking of a Ukrainian hornet's nest, Obama appears to be blindly stumbling into what may become a very ugly European crisis.

Video: Surprise: Russian Paranoia Over Missile Defense Continues, US To Place Aegis BMD Ships "In The Arctic"

Aegis cruiser USS Ticonderoga in rough seas

In the days after Obama's surprise introduction of his new European missile defense plan, many wondered how the Russians would react. The conventional wisdom quickly settled on the "Obama as Chessmaster" view, in which his pragmatic swapping of fixed, ground-based interceptors (GBIs) & radar in Eastern Europe for mobile SM-3's oh-so-cleverly brought the Russians to our side right before Obama dropped the bomb on Iran at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh. Brilliant! A masterstroke! (crowing video here) 

I had a different take:

Does anyone really believe the Russians will suddenly be all hunky-dory over a new land-based system after their screeching just successfully killed the old one? Dream on.

For a refresher on what will change under Obama's plan, here are two key highlights from the Pentagon briefing. In the first clip, Gen. Cartwright describes the future SM-3-based system (sea- and land-based), its global mobility, its "substantial capability" against ICBMs, and the geometric increase in interceptor inventory it enjoys. The second half is Gates talking about Russia:

So we're ditching 10 siloed interceptors in a tiny, easily monitored, fixed location in Poland ... for hundreds of extremely mobile ones --- specifically designed to counter massive ICBM missile raids --- in and around Europe both at sea and (probably) on mobile ground launchers. Yep, the Russians will absolutely love that.

What's that? They don't?

You mean the guy who originally touted the nefarious Polish GBI-as-nuke scenario that Gates described above has a new paranoid conspiracy? Why, yes. Yes, he does --- American missile defense ships in the Arctic countering Russia's ICBMs:

[Russia's ambassador to NATO] Dmitry Rogozin's comments showed Moscow's distrust as it awaits details on Pentagon plans to create new mobile interceptor missiles, dropping an earlier U.S. scheme to set up fixed bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"Where are the guarantees that this mobile thing, be it a boat, a cruiser, or a battleship with a mounted missile-defense system and with missile interceptors, will not sail into our northern seas?" Rogozin said at a press briefing.

Wait a tick: what about the Arctic permapack and Ice Station Zebra and all that, you ask? How can American Aegis cruisers ply the rock hard Arctic Ocean, Dmitry? Easy, he explains:

He added that the reduction of sea ice in Arctic due to climate change could lead to the all-year-round opening of the Northern Sea Route, is a shipping lane running along Russia's Far Eastern and Siberian coasts that is usually only free of ice for around eight weeks a year.

"The ice would retreat, it would melt, which means that NATO would definitely be present in the Arctic. They have been planning it for a long time, and under the very bad circumstances the U.S. strategic missile defense would arrive there onboard these ships," Rogozin said.

Global warming --- is there anything it can't do?

Full Video: Pentagon Briefing On European Missile Defense

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright discuss President Obama's new plan for European ballistic missile defense in the following four videos (transcript):

.

Video: Obama On European Missile Defense

.

London In Iranian Missile Range Within 3-4 Years

Tick Tock

According to Israel's leading missile defense expert Uzi Rubin, Iran's recent advances in multi-staged, solid-fueled missiles will put most of Europe within their reach --- much, much sooner than any US intelligence estimate:

HUNTSVILLE, Ala., Aug 20 (Reuters) - Iran could have the ability to strike most of Europe with a ballistic missile within three or four years if it made an all-out push, the former head of Israel's missile defense program said on Thursday.

If correct, the timeline cited by Uzi Rubin, a leading authority on Iran's program, puts a fresh note of urgency into a diplomatically thorny debate over building a multibillion-dollar anti-missile shield in Europe.

U.S. officials have cast the timeline further out, leaving longer to sort out defenses.

"If they push it -- put all the budget, put all the engineers -- three or four years" is all it would take to give Iran's existing ballistic missile a range of 3,900 kilometers (2,438 miles), enough to hit London, Rubin told a U.S. Army-sponsored missile-defense conference in Huntsville, Alabama. "Will they do it? I'm not sure."

Why is Rubin's timeline so much more accelerated than his American peers'? As has occurred with most militaries throughout history, the Iranians simply had a breakthrough --- it happens:

The Breakthrough: Iran's Sejjil-2

Rubin said Iran had achieved "a technological and strategic breakthrough" with its Sejjil, a two-stage, solid propellant missile. On May 20, Iran test-fired the Sejjil 2, which is said by Tehran to have a range of about 2,000 kilometers.

"Based on its demonstrated achievement in solid propulsion and staging, Iran will face no technological challenges" in close to doubling its range with a one-ton warhead, said Rubin, who oversaw development of Israel's Arrow anti-missile system while running the Jewish state's missile defense effort from 1991 to 1999.

"The predictions (about Iran's growing missile reach) are coming true, perhaps sooner than anyone thought," he added in reply to a question after a presentation. "I think there was an underestimation of Iranian capability."

As I reported after the Sejjil-2's unexpected success in May, over 20 European capitals are already within range. As Rubin correctly observes, they've achieved the breakthrough (solid fuel & staging) --- now it's just a matter of perfecting it in order to reach the rest of Europe.

With Iranian missile technology advancing by leaps and bounds, an intransigent Russia, and a pusillanimous Administration, what a great time to be going back to the drawing board on European missile defense...

UPDATE: Welcome, HotAir and AOSHQ headlines.

Unanimous Senate: Any Missile Defense In Europe Must Also Protect The US

Via The Corner, a very interesting display of political jujitsu:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT) lauded the unanimous adoption of his amendment, put forward with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), urging that any U.S. missile defense systems deployed to Europe must be capable of protecting both Europe and the United States.

 

“This unanimous vote by the Senate sends the clear message that it is imperative that we have an effective missile defense program given the threats to America and our allies.  Just one year after the United States signed an agreement to deploy the Ground-Based Midcourse defense system to Poland and the Czech Republic, the Obama administration says that it considers the GMD system just one of several options—some of which cannot protect the U.S homeland,” Lieberman said.  “The Senate today made clear that we will only support alternatives to the current plan that can defend both the United States and our European allies.”

This is a crucial distinction.

 

President Obama and people in his Adminstration like SecDef Gates and Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher have been methodically laying the groundwork to completely abandon Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) in Poland. Instead, they're hoping to get by with mobile batteries of THAAD and tactical Aegis BMD ship deployments on Europe's periphery. 

 

Unfortunately, while protecting Europe itself, Euro-based THAAD and Aegis assets have no ability to intercept a long-range ICBM launched from the Middle East towards the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. GMD is the only missile defense asset that can perform that mission --- and Poland is the best place to deploy it:

 

As I've said before, an Iranian ICBM bound for the US must overfly Europe on the way there. That's just the way it is. Blame Sir Isaac Newton.

 

By the time it's over Europe, an ICBM is well beyond the reach of the relatively shorter range THAAD and Aegis shooters. Their smaller interceptors simply cannot reach the ICBM in space over Europe, but GMD's large, silo-based interceptors are designed to do just that. Instead of waiting to the last minute to fire the 3-stage GMD interceptors from Alaska or California --- and have them hauling ass all the way across the continental United States, dropping spent booster stages on hapless Americans below as they streak eastward --- 2-stage GMD interceptors in Poland would allow us a much earlier intercept opportunity.

 

So, back to this Lieberman-Sessions amendment to the defense authorization --- essentially it forces Obama to use GMD in Poland or nothing. Since this is perfectly aligned with why we're putting GMD in Europe in the first place (defense of the US has always been the priority; Euro defense is gravy), it allows no wiggle room. Obama can't say "we'll protect Europe with these other systems," scrap the Polish GMD site, and earn some brownie points with the Russians on START nuclear talks.

 

Unless he vetoes the defense authorization (unlikely), Obama must abide by a unanimous Senate and honor our agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic and deploy GMD in Europe. No alternatives.

 

UPDATE: Video of Sen. Sessions speaking about this amendment:

 

.

Medvedev Resets The "Reset Summit"; Again Threatens NATO With Russian Missiles

Whatever...

It sure didn't take long for Obama's glow to fade in the eyes of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:

In sharp contrast to his positive words during President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow earlier this week when the two reached broad agreement on nuclear arms cuts, Mr Medvedev used a news conference at the G8 summit to return to Russia's earlier tough rhetoric on arms control.

Referring to an order he gave earlier this year to prepare deployment of short-range Russian missiles in the western enclave of Kaliningrad to answer to any US deployment of a missile shield in central Europe, Medvedev said:

"If we don't manage to agree on the issues, you know the consequences. What I said during my state of the nation address has not been revoked."

It appears a certain Russian President got taken to the woodshed by a certain Russian Prime Minister since Obama left Moscow:

Mr Medvedev, speaking at the G8, also appeared to change his tone on the missile defence shield itself.

During Mr Obama's visit he told the US leader, using markedly softer language than normal, that "no one is saying that missile defence is harmful in itself or that it poses a threat to someone".

But in Italy on Friday, Mr Medvedev returned to the Kremlin's traditional posture on the system, describing it as "harmful" and "threatening to Russia".

Aaaaand we're back to square one --- reset indeed.

As I noted earlier in the week, the Russians are giddy that they pried loose a key concession from Obama in the form of linking strategic nuclear cuts to missile defense. Charles Krauthammer observes that not only is this linkage a terrible idea, but that Obama's faith in the power of anachronistic arms control mechanisms is comical ... and quite dangerous:

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs.

That a man of Obama’s intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers —- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) —- induced the curtailment of anyone’s programs.

Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

It really is amazing that Obama would think that the sterling example of nuclear arms treaties between the US and Russia would somehow have any influence on intransigent, sanction-riddled international scofflaws and pariah states like Iran and North Korea. They have no use for their own agreements with the international community, much less the chirpy "role model" agreements between the US and Russia.