Commentary
The conflict is exposing the deep energy vulnerabilities of Korea’s chip industry.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Tim Sahay
{
"authors": [
"Kimberly Misher"
],
"type": "other",
"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",
"Nuclear Energy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Why Obama is Right on Missile Defense—What's Next?
President Obama's decision to reconfigure the proposed missile shield in Eastern Europe was the right one, based on technical, financial, political, and security considerations.
By Kimberly Misher
Published on Sep 18, 2009
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.”
About the Author
Kimberly Misher
Former Program Manager, Nuclear Policy Program
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
- The Iran War Is Also Now a Semiconductor Problem
- Shockwaves Across the GulfCommentary
The countries in the region are managing the fallout from Iranian strikes in a paradoxical way.
Angie Omar
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- The U.S. Risks Much, but Gains Little, with IranCommentary
In an interview, Hassan Mneimneh discusses the ongoing conflict and the myriad miscalculations characterizing it.
Michael Young
