NATO – West Needs New Missile Shield Against Iran


Nato’s Secretary-General has urged the construction of a new missile defence system to protect Europe from the threat of Iranian nuclear attack.

By Nick Meo in Brussels

Anders Fogh Rasmussen told The Sunday Telegraph he has full American backing for a proposed €200 million (£165 million) defensive “shield”, which he hopes will be agreed in November at a summit of members in Lisbon.

He was speaking after weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warned last week that Iran had passed a crucial nuclear threshold which took it nearer to being able to arm ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.

“Based on their public statements we know that Iran already has missiles with a range sufficient to hit targets in Europe, and they don’t hide the fact that they want to further develop their capability,” Mr Rasmussen said.

“If Iran eventually acquires a nuclear capability that will be very dangerous, and a direct threat to the allies. That is the reason why I am now proposing a new and effective Nato missile defence system.”

He claimed that the new system could be set up in cooperation with Russia, which has angrily opposed previous American attempts to set up missile shields in Europe.

Iran’s longest-range ballistic missiles, such as the Shahab-3 and the Qiam-1, have ranges of around 2,500 miles and could hit targets in Turkey and Greece.

Some will see the plan for a new missile shield as a tacit admission that America has rejected the risky option of launching air attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, and given up hopes of deterring Iran from building a bomb, as Western governments believe it is trying to do.

Europe’s anti-missile defences at present largely consist of American-made SM-3 missiles, based on US warships, which would attempt to shoot down attacking ballistic missiles.

Speaking at his residence in a luxurious suburb of south Brussels, a day after returning from a meeting with President Barack Obama in Washington, Mr Rasmussen told The Sunday Telegraph that he believes that it would be relatively straightforward to set up a new defensive system. Under the plan, an anti-ballistic missile “shield” would be extended across Nato’s territory, coordinated by a new command and control system that would “knit together” existing radar and other sensor systems, with new SM-3 missiles based on land.

“In a nutshell we could build an effective missile defence system to protect all our population by connecting existing systems,” he said. “Even in a time of economic constraints it would cost very little – €200 million over 10 years, shared between 28 allies. For a modest cost we can protect 900 million citizens.

“If Nato decides to go ahead and develop a missile defence system it should be accompanied by an invitation to the Russians to cooperate. This would make sense from a security point of view. Realistically we would have a Nato system alongside a Russian system. We can develop cooperation mechanisms which would make the whole system more effective.

“No decisions have been taken yet. We will have consultation with Russia. We need effective protection against a real threat.” Supporters of the plan believe it could fundamentally alter the troubled relationship between Nato and Russia, ushering in a new era of cooperation.

Nato officials hope a less ambitious defensive system designed to cope with only a few attacking missiles would not antagonise Russia. They have already held talks with their Russian counterparts to set up a “security roof” which would link the missile defence systems of the US, other Nato countries, and Russia.

Early in his presidency Mr Obama scrapped his predecessor’s plans to site anti-ballistic missiles in Poland, with sensors to detect attacking missiles located in the Czech Republic, because of Russian anger.

Nato officials hope Iran’s progress towards nuclear weapons may now help change Russian minds. Weapons inspectors announced last week that Iranian nuclear scientists had enriched enough uranium for a warhead, although miniaturising an atomic device and constructing an effective nuclear missile are highly demanding technical tasks that Iran is still some way from achieving.

Inspectors will also criticise Tehran in a report this week for repeated failure to co-operate with checks that material was held securely at Iranian plants, and the refusal of Iranian officials to answer questions about whether it was attempting to make a nuclear warhead.

In February the IAEA declared that it believed Iran was working on a nuclear warhead.

Not all missile experts are convinced Iran will pose a threat to Europe. Robert Hewson, editor of the industry publication Jane’s Air-launched Weapons, said: “Missile defence is more about shovelling money to American contractors than protecting people in Basingstoke.”

Afghanistan will be the main focus of the Lisbon Summit, and Mr Rasmussen said that he hopes to make a major announcement on progress in handing responsibility for security of provinces from Nato to Afghans— so-called transition.

“I hope to announce at Lisbon that transition is about to start,” he said. “I would expect a gradual transition process to start in 2011, and it would end by 2014.”

Nato had hoped to begin handing some of the less violent provinces to Afghan control before the November summit. Mr Rasmussen said the delay was not significant. “We have to make sure the process is irreversible,” he said.

In the week that Taliban leader Mullah Omar predicted Taliban victory, the Secretary-General said Nato would “stay the course” in Afghanistan.

“I understand very well that people are impatient and want to see progress. So do I. Progress would be gradually handing over Afghanistan to Afghan control. We will soon see concrete results with our new strategy.”

3 Responses

  1. BigD says:

    NATO- I See This as NATO’s Stepping Up to the Plate & Accepting Responsibility of Their Accepted Position of; “Yes! We Must Play an Active Role & Act The Part of an ACTUAL PARTICIPANT in This World of New Rising Military Powers via La Atomic Bomb!” Not to Mention the Conglomeration of Enemy Militant Factions Within Our Own Countries.

    Play Time is Up with the Enemy’s Definitely Inevitable Action to Pounce.

  2. This is just a political ruse, once again. It is obvious that the man has been bought off. What is the real threat from Iranian nukes that do not exist? I’m sure it is more in line to defend against Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons. But who, in reality, has every capital of Europe in their nuclear missle sights? The truthful answer is Israel, who has boasted about this for years. Nuclear blackmail anyone? So, how much did he get paid from the Zionists to make such a statement? Or was he blackmailed? Surely they jest to think that Iran would take on Europe, or anyone. If they did have nuclear weapons it would be for defensive purposes, like to destroy an invasion force from the an aggressor. Certainly not a first strike weapon as Israel might do. When we look at how many countries in Europe have nuclear weapons stationed there, on behest of the USA, possibly even England it makes no sense. Yet we know that Israel has threatened the world. Until the world gets sane and dismantles all nuclear weapons, we must live in fear of places like the USA, England, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan and most of all Israel. Iran is not a threat. Unless the world finds the political will to disarm Israel of its rogue nuclear arsenal, we will all live in fear. Israel is the most unstable country in the world because it is their nature of aggression, lying, stealing and murdering, behavior no one has the guts to put a stop to, that has lead them to believe they can get away with anything, even nuclear war.

  3. Abaddon says:

    Who could ever trust a politician? Any politician?
    Politics has brought the world to where it is today.
    Do you feel safe?
    Do you believe what they say?
    Could you EVER believe what they say?
    Are politicians willing to exploit their own people?
    Are they easily bought by the power money elite?
    Are they puppets for the money men, the real power behind the throne?
    Do you believe Iran has no intentions of developing nuclear weapons?
    Do you believe the western leaders believe that?
    Do you believe that politicians lie?
    Do you believe that politicians trust other politicians?
    Do you know of any politician that has a proven track record of integrity?
    Do you vote?
    Now you know why we have the world we have.
    Now you know that we are all to blame.
    Now you know that we are all headed toward world war three.
    Now you know.

Leave a Reply

© 2010 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.