Other Amendments Related to Iran in the Defense Authorization Bill

In her weekly Legislative Round-up, Lara Friedman points out four more amendments to the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, in addition to the two already posted on INW (Dodd-Shelby Sanctions Legislation and the Brownback annual report on Iran's military power and strategy).

As I have said repeatedly and consistently throughout the year, the most likely vehicle for passing legislation on Iran this year is amendments to must-pass legislation. It is very clear that both Democrats and Republicans are using the Defense Authorization bill as means for politicking and proving their toughness for dealing with Iran, which is proving an important issue in this election cycle. I will not be surprised if all of the amendments on Iran are considered germane and voted on during the debate of the FY'09 Defense Authorizaton bill next week. In my humble opinion, the debate on the non-binding H.Con.Res. 362/S.Res. 580 is basically a distraction at this point as the Senate prepares to debate and pass binding legislation on Iran, though still possibly subject to a veto, that will include more of the same wrong-headed approach for dealing with Iran, i.e. more punitive measures (e.g. sanctions, divestment, more money for missile defense, etc.) without any meaningful change in U.S. policy that includes incentives (e.g. a real credible offer for sustained, direct diplomacy without preconditions).

Here are the other four Iran amendments submitted, as included by Lara in her ever-fabulous Weekly Legislative Round-up:

SA 5359: Offered by Sen. Brownback (R-KS), SA 5358 would amend language in the bill related to the authorization of funds for the Airborne Laser System program. The original bill states that funds may not be obligated or expended for the program until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the system "has demonstrated, through successful testing and operational and cost analysis, a high probability of being operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable." The amendment would change this to a certification that the system "has demonstrated, through successful testing and operational and cost analysis, a high probability of being operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable relative to the ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea, Iran, and other countries with active ballistic missile development and fielding programs."

SA 5360: Offered by Sen. Brownback (R-KS), this amendment is similar to SA 5488, requiring an annual (rather than biannual, as stipulated in SA 5488) report on military power of Iran. The report would be required to address: "(1) The goals of the grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy of Iran during the 20-year period beginning on the date of such report, and the relationship between such strategies and the current security situation in the Middle East and Central and South Asia. (2) The size, location, and capabilities of the land, sea, air, and irregular forces of Iran, including the Artesh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Lebanese Hezbollah, and any other force controlled by the Iran or receiving funds or training from the Iran. (3) Developments in and the capabilities of the ballistic missile, nuclear, and chemical and biological weapons programs of Iran. (4) The degree to which Iran depends on unconventional, irregular, or asymmetric capabilities to achieve its strategic goals. (5) The irregular warfare capabilities of Iran, including the exploitation of asymmetric strategies and related weapons and technology, the use of covert forces, the use of proxy forces, support for terrorist organizations, and strategic communications efforts. (6) Efforts by Iran to develop, acquire, or gain access to information, communication, nuclear, and other advanced technologies that would enhance its military capabilities. (7) The nature and significance of any arms, munitions, military equipment, or military or dual-use technology acquired by Iran from outside Iran, including from a foreign government or terrorist organization, or provided by Iran to any foreign government or terrorist organization. (8) The nature and significance of any bilateral or multilateral security or defense-related cooperation agreements, whether formal or informal, between Iran and any foreign government or terrorist organization. (9) Expenditures by Iran on each of the following: (A) The security forces of Iran, whether regular and irregular, including the Artesh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. (B) The programs of Iran relating to weapons of mass destruction. (C) Support provided to terrorist groups, insurgent groups, irregular proxy forces, and related activities. (D) Bilateral military aid."

SA 5362: Offered by Sen. Coleman (R-MN), this amendment would bar the U.S. from entering into an agreement for nuclear cooperation with Russia, bar the export and transfer/re-transfer of nuclear material, facilities, or components to Russia, until the President certifies that "Russia has suspended all nuclear assistance to Iran and all transfers of advanced conventional weapons and missiles to Iran, including the SA-20 system" or " Iran has completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantled all nuclear enrichment-related and reprocessing-related programs" and "all Russian forces have been withdrawn from the undisputed territory of the sovereign state of Georgia and Russia has complied with its obligations under the cease-fire agreement signed on August 15, 2008."

SA 5425: Offered by Sen Kyl (R-AZ), to amend a review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the United States mandated in the bill to include a review of, among other things, "The ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea, Iran, and other countries with active ballistic missile development and fielding programs, including the following: (A) The existing inventories of short-range, medium-range, long-range, and intercontinental-range ballistic missiles of each such country, and the ranges of such missiles based on possible launch points. (B) The ballistic missile programs currently under development by each such country, including, for each such program, an assessment of-- (i) the ranges of the ballistic missiles under such program; (ii) the fuel propulsion systems for such missiles; (iii) the booster and warhead characteristics of such missiles; and (iv) the capacity of such missiles to employ countermeasures, decoys, or multiple re-entry vehicles. (C) The ballistic missile tests and exercises of each such country since 2005. (D) The proliferation of ballistic missile hardware, technology and expertise of each such country. (E) The ballistic missile launch facilities of each such country, whether existing or under construction."

Members of Congress Asks President to Fully Integrate Israel into U.S. Missile Defenses

Last week, nearly seventy members of Congress signed a letter that was sent to President Bush calling on him to deliver full missile defenses to Israel and deploy an X-Band ground-based warning radar fully integrated with the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense program to maximize Israel’s defense against an Iranian missile strike. The letter was spearheaded by Representatives Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Jane Harman (D-CA).

The letter cited the Iranian threat as the key justification behind the call for the Israel’s integration into the U.S. missile program. “Given the Iranian President’s threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map,’ we should put the full weight of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense system behind our democratic ally,” the letter said.

“Iranian President Ahmadinejad calls for Israel to be wiped off the map and talks of the Jewish people’s annihilation. America should send a message to the Iranian dictator – Israel will have the full weight of America’s missile defense system to defend herself,”Rep. Kirk said.

“Israel’s security is in constant jeopardy. As an important ally and shining democratic example in the Middle East, her protection is a top U.S. priority,” Rep. Harman said. “The threat from Iran is real – both to her security and to the stability of the region. Sharing our BMD capability with Israel is smart policy and an effective deterrent against an increasingly volatile neighbor.”

Hyping Iran’s ballistic missile threat is nothing new. Some may recall that the primary justification for the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a “proliferator of weapons of mass destruction” in October 2007 actually had less to do with nuclear materials, and more to do with ballistic missiles. Iran’s ballistic missile program remains largely in its nascent stages, however. The US intelligence community has consistently estimated since 1999 that Iran will not have mastered the science of intercontinental ballistic missiles until 2015. At that point, Iran would still have to manufacture an arsenal of missiles and weapons to fit the missiles, putting the actual deployment date even further into the future. Also, though the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation and the Missile Technology Control Regime are voluntary mechanisms intended to discourage states from proliferating missile technology, there is no binding international treaty that prohibits Iran from developing its ballistic missile capability.

Since Iran lacks the ability to reach the U.S., members of Congress and the Bush administration have tried to focus attention on the “threat” of Iran’s shorter-range ballistic missiles that are capable of striking Israel and Turkey, as well as American troops based in the Persian Gulf as a means to justify heavier U.S. military presence and sell the deployment of missile defenses in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

The full letter is below. A full list of signatures can be obtained by contacting Eric Elk (Kirk) at 847-940-0202 or Max Weihe (Harman) at 202-225-8220.

May 5, 2008
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

On January 28, 2008, you signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into law. This legislation included a mandated report by the Secretary of Defense on future coordination, interoperability, and integration of Israel into the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense program.As you know, the Iranian ballistic missile program is expanding. In November, the Iranians tested a new Ashura long-range ballistic missile – an upgrade to the Shahab-3 capable of hitting Israel and Europe.

Given the Iranian President’s threat to “wipe Israel off the map,” we should put the full weight of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system behind our democratic ally. We urge you to work with the Government of Israel to install an upgraded U.S. BMD ground-based early warning radar site in Israel that is fully integrated with the U.S. BMD architecture.

In 2001, the United States granted Israel access to the U.S. Defense Support Program (DSP), the principal component of our Satellite Early Warning System. This watershed cooperative program established the precedent for U.S.-Israel cooperation on early warning.DSP, however, only solves one challenge: missile launch detection. It does not contribute significantly to target discrimination and intercept capability. To reduce the Iranian threat, we should deploy a U.S. BMD-linked X-Band ground-based warning radar to Israel to maximize her defenses.

A U.S. BMD early-warning radar site in Israel would improve target discrimination, imaging, modeling, and battle management. An X-Band radar linked to the U.S. BMD system would work in concert with the DSP support we already provide Israel to fully target any incoming threat and increase the likelihood of successful intercepts.

Thank you for your continued support of a strong U.S.-Israel defense relationship.

Sincerely,

Iranian Ballistic Missile Threat Reinforced in Def Auth Bill

During the conference of the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Act, the House receded to the Senate provision stating it is the policy of the United States to develop and deploy in conjunction with its allies and other nations an effective defense against Iranian ballistic missiles. The provision was added to the Senate version on July 12, when the Senate voted 90 to 5 to pass Amendment No. 2024 introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). It should be noted, however, that Congress cut out $85 million in construction funding for the new missile defense sites in Europe from the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations bill.

As I noted in “War Is Peace, Sanctions Are Diplomacy”:
“Iran’s ballistic missile program remains largely in its nascent stages, however. The US intelligence community has consistently estimated since 1999 that Iran will not have mastered the science of intercontinental ballistic missiles until 2015. At that point, Iran would still have to manufacture an arsenal of missiles and weapons to fit the missiles, putting the actual deployment date even further into the future. (Also, though the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation and the Missile Technology Control Regime are voluntary mechanisms intended to discourage states from proliferating missile technology, there is no binding international treaty that prohibits Iran from developing its ballistic missile capability.)

“Since Iran lacks the ability to reach the United States, the Bush administration has tried to focus attention on the “threat” of its shorter-range missiles. Just two days before the sanctions rollout, Bush delivered a speech at the National Defense University in which he spoke of Iranian “ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel and Turkey, as well as American troops based in the Persian Gulf.” He further cited the Iranian ballistic missile program as a justification for a heavier US military presence in Eastern Europe: ‘Today, we have no way to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat, so we must deploy a missile defense system there that can.’”


Here is the Conference Report language on Iranian ballistic missile “threat”:

Policy of the United States on protection of the United States and its allies against Iranian ballistic missiles (sec. 229)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1218) that would state the policy of the United States to develop and deploy, in conjunction with its allies and other nations whenever possible, an effective defense against Iranian ballistic missiles that threaten forward-deployed forces of the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in Europe, and which could eventually pose a threat to the United States homeland. The provision would also make it the policy of the United States to proceed with the development of such defenses so that any missile defenses fielded by the United States in Europe are integrated with or complementary to missile defense capabilities fielded by NATO.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment that would add a policy statement to encourage NATO to accelerate its efforts to acquire missile defense capabilities to defend NATO territory against the existing threat of Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, including wide-area defense. It also includes references to other allies and friendly nations in the region.

The Iran Threat Excuse

The justification for the missile defense has evolved over the years. In its nascent years, it was conceived to protect the US from an attack by the former Soviet Union. During President Clinton’s presidency, the system was touted as a means to protect the US from “states of concern” as they were known then, primarily from an emerging North Korea threat (remember the DPRK’s missile test which flew over Japan in 1998?). Though the Bush administration also carries the line that the system can protect from a launch by North Korea, Iran has taken center stage as the justification for deploying a system in Europe. Today, President Bush gave a speech at the National Defense University in which he cited the Iranian threat as a justification for deploying missile defenses in Eastern Europe.

In his speech, President Bush said:

“The need for missile defense in Europe is real and I believe it's urgent. Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles of increasing range that could deliver them. Last November, Iran conducted military exercises in which it launched ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel and Turkey, as well as American troops based in the Persian Gulf. Iranian officials have declared that they are developing missiles with a range of 1,200 miles, which would give them the capability to strike many of our NATO allies, including Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and possibly Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia. Our intelligence community assesses that, with continued foreign assistance, Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States and all of Europe before 2015. If it chooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps to prevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability. And we need to take it seriously -- now.
“Today, we have no way to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat, so we must deploy a missile defense system there that can.”

The Iranian threat is largely fabricated. In contradictory remarks during a press conference today in Prague, Czech Republic, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the United States might delay activating its planned East European missile defense sites. According to Gates, the missile defense system might not be activated until Iran takes some concrete action, such as testing its own missiles.

Even Congress is buying into the Iranian threat as a justification for the system. On July 12, the Senate voted 90 to 5 to pass a modified version of Sen. Sessions (R-AL) amendment No. 2024 to the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill. The amendment states that it should be the policy of the United States to develop and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective defense against “the threat from Iran.” It also says that any US missile defense system in Europe should be complementary to any missile defense system fielded by NATO.

Missile defenses provoke rather than prevent the proliferation of ballistic missiles and they could contribute to regional conflicts and arms races. In addition, the US has spent more than $120 billion on missile defenses since Ronald Reagan’s presidency and yet missile defenses have not proven effective.

Instead of manufacturing threats to justify spending billions of dollars on a system that does not work, the US should focus its efforts on bringing countries into the Missile Technology Control Regime, bolstering the regime and controlling, limiting and dismantling ballistic missiles globally.