• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [],
  "type": "pressRelease",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "Caucasus",
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Military"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Press Release

Obama was right to scrap the missile shield in Europe

Critics of President Obama’s move to reconfigure the proposed missile shield in Europe have accused the administration of kowtowing to Russia in the naïve hope of increased pressure from Moscow on Iran. Kimberly Misher contends that the president’s decision was the right one based on technical, financial, political, and security considerations.

Link Copied
Published on Sep 18, 2009
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

WASHINGTON, Sept 18—Critics of President Obama’s move to reconfigure the proposed missile shield in Europe have accused the administration of kowtowing to Russia in the naïve hope of increased pressure from Moscow on Iran. In a new policy outlook, Kimberly Misher contends that the president’s decision was the right one based on technical, financial, political, and security considerations.

Key Conclusions

  • The previous plan fell short technologically against a potential missile threat from Iran.
  • The proposed shield unnecessarily heightened tensions between the United States and Russia and exposed fissures among new NATO members over the Alliance’s collective security guarantees.
  • The planned installations in Poland and the Czech Republic made both countries more vulnerable to Russian coercion yet provided neither with new capabilities to withstand Russian aggression.
  • The United States should explore opportunities for joint missile defense systems to constructively engage Russia on European security, reinforce NATO’s security guarantees, and strengthen the deterrent against Iran.

“The Obama administration was right to evaluate planned missile defense deployments against tough standards of feasibility, affordability, and desirability,” writes Misher. “Its decision to reconfigure European missile defenses to meet a short- and medium-range Iranian missile threat demonstrates a commitment to European defenses, not an abandonment of its allies.”

###


NOTES

  • Click here to read the policy outlook

  • Kimberly Misher is a research assistant in the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment. She conducts research on U.S. missile defense, extended deterrence, and Russian nuclear policy.
  • The Carnegie Nonproliferation Program is an internationally recognized source of knowledge and policy thinking on efforts to curb the spread and use of nuclear weapons. Carnegie’s analysis consistently stays at the forefront of proliferation developments and nonproliferation policy debates.
  • Carnegie Proliferation News provides synopses of top news stories related to preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons every Tuesday and Thursday.
  • Press Contact: David Kampf, 202/939-2233, dkampf@ceip.org
MilitaryUnited StatesCaucasusRussiaEastern Europe

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Multiple Wars Are Ruining Central Asia’s Efforts to Diversify Its Trade Routes

    This year’s wars have made alternative routes to transit through Russia no less risky for Central Asian countries.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Three people standing outside a fancy building
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Latest Iran Deal Ignores the Lessons of the Past

    By burying disagreements in imprecision, the new deal risks same fate as its predecessors.

      James M. Acton

  • Man sitting in a chair reading a newspaper with Trump's face above the fold
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Iran Wanted to Survive the War. Now What?

    The United States and Israel may have unwittingly revived the Islamic Republic’s “zombie regime.”

      Suzanne Maloney, Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour

  • Aerial view of burned-out cars and homes
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Overlooked Link Between Disaster Response at Home and U.S. Power Abroad

    Natural disasters are no longer local incidents but sources of systemic risk that threaten vital infrastructure and the economy—and public support for international engagement.

      Leonardo Martinez-Diaz

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is European Diplomacy on Iran Outdated?

    When the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding was announced, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy declared their readiness to help demine the Strait of Hormuz and lift nuclear sanctions on Tehran. But does Europe need new tools to recover a diplomatic role?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.