National Diplomacy Defense

After the Russian announcement about removing missile from Kaliningrad (post on the issue from yesterday located here), Steve Andreasen wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle today arguing to slow down the current missile defense trajectory that we are on.  Citing a combination of cost, unknown reliability, and political backlash Andreasen instead argues,

We should not succumb to bluster from Moscow - nor should we allow it to cloud our analysis of whether there is a better way to achieve our security objectives. Instead of deploying unproven missile defenses against a prospective Iranian threat, we should work intensively with Europe and Russia to build a genuine diplomatic offensive to curb Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Specifically, we should discuss the possibility of holding off on U.S. missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for Russia's support for robust action, including further sanctions, on Tehran if negotiations to stop its nuclear and missile programs fail.

The recent "warming," or perhaps mild defrosting, of relations between the U.S. and Russia is certainly a welcoming sign.  Arms control type of problems are usually a place where the U.S. and Russians can find common ground even when relations are rocky.  Whether this spills over to other parts of the relationship will be they key question.  Russia has hampered U.S. efforts on Iran, particularly in the Security Council, for quite some time and so getting them on board to actually help pressure Iran will not be a simple task.  The other part of the equation that is missing is the role of China.  They have also been a strong voice of dissent and a change in the Russian position on Iran may not be enough to convince the Chinese to not veto tougher sanctions resolutions.  The Obama team is high on dialogue and cooperation which is a fresh new approach but we will see how it actually plays out in trying to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and other important problems.