President Barack Obama says he cancelled the land-based interceptor missile-defense program with Poland and the Czech Republic because he has a better plan. People who believe he made a bad decision say he made it to appease the Russians. They say it tells the former Soviet republics of Eastern Europe, including new NATO allies, that they can’t trust the United States, and it demonstrates US fecklessness to Iran. Did the president make a difficult but smart decision, or did he make one of the worst decisions of his presidency? Either way, it's worrisome.

Immediately after President Obama's September 17 announcement, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, briefed the Pentagon press corps. Gates said that Iran’s numerous short and medium-range ballistic missiles pose a more immediate threat than its longer range missiles. Despite Iran’s recent launch of a satellite on a three-stage rocket, Gates said its development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is progressing slower than previously believed. The radar and interceptor launch sites that were to be constructed in the Czech Republic and Poland were intended to defend against a handful of long range missiles aimed at Europe or the United States. (see Sidebar)

Gates explained that technological advances in the development of sensors and missiles allow us to deploy sea-based SM-3 missiles on Aegis cruisers, land based Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot PAC-3 missiles that can better deal with those threats. The new architecture gives the US a more mobile, defendable missile-defense system seven years sooner that can incorporate new sensors and interceptors to defend against longer range threats as they develop.

Gates pointed out that it was he who recommended to President George W. Bush that the US convince Poland and the Czech Republic to enter into agreements with the US for the missile-defense program three years ago. Now he, along with President Obama’s other top national security advisors, unanimously recommended the change of strategy. Gates briefing made sense, up to a point.

If it were not for the current state of US-Russia-Iran relations, and had the Obama administration handled this matter more adroitly, the President’s change in policy might not be so controversial. As Obama’s critics point out, however, the Poles and the Czechs feel betrayed, Russia is emboldened, and Iran considers the president’s decision one more sign of his weakness. The headline in the Polish tabloid Fakt sums it up; "Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back." Announcing the decision on the 70th anniversary of the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland only rubbed salt in the wound.

Gates' rationale makes sense in a purely military context. If the US fails to deter Iran from producing nuclear warheads for its missiles, short and medium-range missiles will pose the greatest threat to Israel and US forces in the Middle East. The US needs the much larger number of short range interceptors to defend against and deter that threat.

While there might be a window during which Iran could launch a nuclear tipped ICBM at the United States before we have sufficient systems to intercept it, a nuclear attack on the United States would result in the near instantaneous incineration of Iran. That’s the kind of threat the thousands of nuclear tipped missiles the US possesses is intended to deter. The only question is which warheads would arrive first in Iran, Israel’s or ours, as Israel would immediately know they were next if they hadn’t already been attacked?

The question neither the president nor the secretary of defense addressed, however, is why they couldn’t incorporate the Czech-Poland program into the new missile-defense architecture? At a time when the US needs maximum leverage to force Iran to the negotiating table, why do something that's likely to further embolden them? And given the lead time necessary to develop anti-ICBM missile defenses, why scrap the Czech-Poland program and start over?

They only logical answer to that question is to obtain Russia's support for tough sanctions on Iran and convince Moscow not to deliver recently-purchased S-300 surface-to-air missiles and other weapons to Iran. These missiles not only are a threat to Israeli aircraft, should they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, but to US aircraft should we launch a counter attack to an Iranian strike on US forces. As best we can determine, based on Russian statements since Obama’s announcement, no such concessions were obtained.

The White House and the Pentagon will, of course, argue that they need to curb defense spending during this time of great economic crisis and that cutting the Czech-Poland program saves billions of dollars. That argument might have more credibility if the federal government wasn’t wasting billions on questionable and unnecessary “stimulus” projects, cash for clunkers, and other programs. The Czech-Poland program likely would create more good US jobs than many of the construction projects in the $787 billion stimulus bill. The White House could justify the expense to the American people as “missiles for mortgages.”

Whether President Obama’s decision turns out to be a wise or a foolish one, only history can judge. Obama’s handling of this matter, however, is worrisome. It demonstrates his inexperience in foreign affairs, his excessive reliance on good will gestures and unilateral concessions, and his lack of skill in playing the geo-strategic chess game. He easily could have adjusted US missile-defense strategy without undercutting our allies and giving our enemies reason to believe we’re an easy mark.