ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The administration offered Russia no quid pro quo to abandon European missile defense in exchange for Moscow’s help blocking Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, President Obama insisted Tuesday.Obama recently wrote to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev asking for help in stopping Iran from getting the bomb. The letter reportedly suggested Washington would abandon plans for a missile defense shield in Central Europe in exchange for Russia’s help preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons capabilities.The Kremlin said Tuesday that Iran and the missile shield were separate issues, even as congressional Democrats and Republicans reacted to the president’s suggestion with praise and concern.The economy is dominating administration and world attention, but Obama’s letter could have far-reaching implications ahead of next month’s G-20 summit.After a meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Obama disputed the characterization of the letter as reported by The New York Times, adding that the letter covered “a wide range of issues.” He also sought to clarify that the reason for the defense system is not Russia, but Iran.“What I said in the letter was that, obviously, to the extent that we are lessening Iran’s commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for — or the need for a missile defense system,” Obama said. “In no way does that diminish my commitment to making sure that Poland, the Czech Republic and other NATO members are fully enjoying the partnership, the alliance, and U.S. support with respect to their security.”Despite the president’s attempts to defuse questions about a trade-off between the two countries, reaction on Capitol Hill was heated.Members of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee drew sharp lines over the administration’s perceived strategy. Republicans, in interviews with The Hill, blasted Obama’s “naïveté,” but Democrats defended the effort as the best chance to turn Iran away from the brink of nuclear power.National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Chairman(Texas) said Obama would be sacrificing an “absolutely necessary, important program” in the missile defense system.“It’s not just Iran developing ballistic missiles. If you look at the number of countries around the world who have ballistic or intercontinental ballistic missiles, it’s a pretty scary, staggering number,” Cornyn said. “It’s a very important program, and it just strikes me as naive to think that we’re going to cut a deal with Russia somehow to help us with Iran.”“Not a very good idea at all,” agreed Sen.(R-S.C.). “The idea of trying to give up a missile shield that would protect our troops and our European allies from a rogue missile attack coming from Iran or some other place in the Mideast doesn’t make sense to me.”Sen.(R-S.D.) said Obama was sacrificing a potentially vital component of U.S. security based on a faint hope.“I would have serious questions and doubts about whether it would really happen,” Thune said of Obama’s strategy. “[Russians] have been in cahoots with Iran on this issue for a long time and until we have something that’s a lot firmer than a wink and a nod, it just seems like a very vague and innocuous commitment that needs to have more teeth in it.”Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with Democrats, stepped away from his colleagues to express “concern” over the strategy. Lieberman cautioned that the U.S. risks endangering itself as well as its allies in Warsaw and Prague.{mospagebreak}Lieberman, who chairs the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, also suggested the U.S. may have greater success by trying to convince Russia it would also be endangered by a nuclear Iran.“I’d be very hesitant to pull back on that missile defense unless we really know Iran is going to stop its missile offense,” Lieberman said. “I would hope that Russia itself would have enough concern about Iranian missiles that they would join us in deterring the Iranian capacity without us having to pull back.”As eyebrows were raised throughout the day over the president’s quibbling over the language in the letter, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sought to retract the growing idea that Obama was pursuing a change in policy.“You’ve heard the president discuss the notion that any deployment would be based on a number of factors, including whether or not the system worked and the cost of that system,” Gibbs said. He added: “The president and I have said on any number of different occasions that we will use all elements of that national power to address [Iranian] threats. And rebooting our relationship and working with Russia in order to counter the threats from Iran removes the driving force behind that system. I think it was a concept that has been enunciated before.”Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, backed up Gibbs’s last point at a Pentagon press conference. Gates said the White House is not trying to put Russia on the spot, but rather reopen the dialogue about how to persuade the Iranians not to go forward with their ballistic missile program.“I told the Russians a year ago that if there were no Iranian missile threat, that there would be no need for the third missile defense site in Europe,” Gates said.At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iran, Sen.(D-N.J.) asked if the proposal as suggested by the letter would be a good enough incentive to get Russia’s help in stopping the development of nuclear weapons in Iran.Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said, “If we can get Russia to line up, China will be very reluctant to be the odd man out.”On the House side, the idea met with similar partisan reaction.That the Obama administration is talking to Russia about missile defense and engaging it with regard to Iran’s development of nuclear weapons is a positive step, said a senior House Democratic aide. However, a major policy shift, including the fate of a third missile site in Central Europe, will be revealed over the next few weeks when the Obama administration will detail the funding for missile defense, said the aide, who asked not to be quoted by name.Meanwhile, Rep.(R-Ariz.), one of the most outspoken GOP supporters of missile defense in Europe, blasted the report that the White House may trade the missile defense plan for Russian cooperation on the Iranian nuclear program.“It would be derelict to trade our most cost-effective means of defending the U.S. homeland, and U.S. interests abroad, for the hope that Russia may be able to convince Mr. Ahmadinejad to suspend the Iranian Republic’s nuclear program,” Franks said in a statement. “The U.S. government has been clear with Russia. The European Ballistic Missile Defense System does not pose a threat to Russia; it defends Americans and Europeans. I absolutely welcome Russian cooperation to convince the Iranians to halt their nuclear program.”