• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Sharon Squassoni"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "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": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Caucasus",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

The Fallout of a Reversal on Missile Defense

President Obama's decision to scrap the Bush administration's plans for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic will provide more breathing room for U.S.-Russian strategic arms control negotiations.

Link Copied
By Sharon Squassoni
Published on Sep 17, 2009

Source: New York Times

The Fallout of a Reversal on Missile DefensePresident Obama announced on September 17 that he will scrap the Bush administration’s plans for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and instead deploy a redesigned system intended to intercept shorter-range Iranian missiles. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the new system would put defenses in place seven years earlier than the Bush plan, which has strained relations with Russia.

What are the consequences of President Obama’s decision? Will the alternative — deploying smaller missiles, at first aboard ships and later elsewhere in Europe or in Turkey — work?

Getting Russia Onboard

The most immediate outcome of President Obama’s decision to replace the ground-based interceptors and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, respectively, with Aegis-based missiles and x-band radars is to provide more breathing room for U.S. -Russian strategic arms control negotiations. The arms control negotiations need to produce agreement before December 2009, when the START treaty expires, and the Russians have continued to complain about George W. Bush’s decision last year to deploy ground-based missile defense systems in Europe.

This link to the arms talks may have been regrettable but unavoidable. Given that the administration was likely to overturn the Bush missile defense deployments anyway, it may be good timing in terms of getting the most mileage from this concession. If it is true that Iranian long-range missile development has been moving more slowly than forecasted — and there is no reason not to believe that, since their capabilities in this area have been overestimated for more than a decade — then deploying a more flexible system against short- and medium-range missiles on an earlier timeframe makes sense.

The issue then remains what options the U.S. and Europe will seek if or when the Iranians actually do deploy a longer range ballistic missile. Will it be a mobile ground-based interceptor, which Boeing floated this summer? Or will relations with Russia in the future prove to be less of an impediment to fixed-missile defense sites? Better yet, will the threat of an Iranian nuclear-tipped missile have faded from view?

One area that absolutely requires Russia’s undivided attention and cooperation is persuading Iran to step back from the nuclear abyss. President Obama knows that. And if a change in missile defense deployments helps that happen, so much the better.

About the Author

Sharon Squassoni

Former Senior Associate, Nuclear Policy Program

Squassoni came to Carnegie from the Congressional Research Service. She also served for nine years in the executive branch. Her last position at the State Department was director of Policy Coordination in the Nonproliferation Bureau.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    Grading Progress on 13 Steps Toward Nuclear Disarmament

      Sharon Squassoni

  • Report
    Nuclear Energy: Rebirth or Resuscitation?

      Sharon Squassoni

Sharon Squassoni
Former Senior Associate, Nuclear Policy Program
Sharon Squassoni
Foreign PolicyNuclear PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesCaucasusRussia

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane

    The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Corrupted by Absolute Power

    In an interview, Marc Lynch discusses his new book decrying the post-1990 U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Why Does the Middle East Suffer “Forever Wars”?

    Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?

    A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran

    In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers. 

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.