Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

April 26, 2007 |  3 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Eckart von Klaeden

Europe Needs a Debate on Missile Defense

Eckart von Klaeden: Europe and Germany need missile defense against the threat from Iran. Europe has long neglected the new strategic threats arising from missile proliferation.

This is the first of a two-part series from the Atlantic Initiative Advisory Board Member.

More than 20 nations now possess ballistic missiles. Most are short-range to medium-range systems, but there is a marked trend towards longer ranges. Germany, Europe and NATO must carry out a long-overdue joint substantiated threat analysis; as a matter of urgency, they must adapt their perception of the threat to reflect present-day realities and reach agreement on an anti-missile shield.

Iran is investing very heavily in the development of long-range missiles, and Germany has been playing an active role in the efforts of the international community to dissuade Iran from the pursuit of its nuclear plans. Tehran’s parallel development of delivery technology in particular would make a nuclear-armed Iran a direct threat to us. Within five to ten years it could be capable of building its own medium-range ballistic missiles with a range of 3,000 kilometers—Munich, for example, is 2,760 kilometers from Iran. Although this means that Iranian ballistic missiles do not yet pose a direct threat to Germany, Tehran can already reach Ankara or Istanbul with the Shahab III missile. In other words, it poses a direct threat to Turkey, our NATO ally, and Cyprus, our EU partner.

Opponents of such a missile defense system argue that Iran has no interest in threatening Europe. Iran, however, is seeking to become the dominant regional power: it has an interest in reducing the influence of the West, and especially the United States, in the Middle East and undermining the US role as guarantor of Israel.Tehran could try to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe by threatening Europe with nuclear arms if the United States or Europe were to engage in operations in the Middle East. Europe could be taken hostage like the 15 British sailors and marines at the end of March. Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its denial of the Holocaust, the repeated threatening gestures of the Mullahs’ regime towards Israel, the Iranian nuclear and missile programs and the country’s persistent infringement of international law—all of these factors must finally be viewed in an overall context in Germany too.

The fact that the International Atomic Energy Authority believes it will take Iran two, four or six years to build a nuclear bomb is truly no reason to sound the all-clear. Given that anti-missile systems can take up to ten years to develop, we should already be taking the first steps to create one.

This is the first part of a two-part series from the Atlantic Initiative Advisory Board Member.
Read the second part Missile Defense Means Common Security for Russia Too

Eckart von Klaeden, German MP, is the foreign-affairs spokesman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group and a member of the CDU Presidium.

Related Material from the Atlantic Community

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | Germany | IAEA | NATO | Iran |
 
Comments
Pat  Patterson

April 27, 2007

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Is it also possible that Iran seeks the more realistic goal of creating a wedge immediately between Europe and the US and its allies, the aforementioned Turkey and Cyprus? Having these areas within range could be seen as a goal rather than an incremental result of striving for nuclear capability and range. If the West is seen as unreliable, the mere appearance of this unreliabilty is a victory for Iran, then might not those threatened seek to make some sort of accomodation?
 
Casey S Butterfield

April 29, 2007

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
It's a good point, Pat. What sort of accommodation would you be referring to?
 
Pat  Patterson

September 28, 2007

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Sorry, this is an inexcusably late response. Turkey could officially not enforce any sanctions against Iran. And in turn Iran might simply turn a blind eye to any Turkish adventurism in the northern governates of Iraq. Though that might place some of Turkeys own financial institutions at risk. While Cyprus, because of its increasingly loophole driven banking system, might serve as an offshore bank for Iran. Iran might also try oil diplomacy with those two countries which are much more prone to social unrest due to inflationary price spirals.

But from the lofty postion of six months between question and answer it could be argued that oil diplomcay has done little good for its primary user, Venezuela.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Malgorzata  KUCINSKA
Malgorzata KUCINSKA
Member since
July 1, 2008

Poll

Is Hillary Clinton a good choice for Secretary of State?