• English Site
• > World
• > Missile Defense

US Missile Shield Debate

'This Is not Something We Are Forcing on a Nation'

In a SPIEGEL interview, General Henry Obering, who runs the US Missile Defense Agency for the Bush administration, explains the need for the controversial system and how he would like to see Russia, NATO and the United States work together to build it.

SPIEGEL: General Obering, is there anything that could prevent the United States from deploying the missile defense system in Europe?

Obering: Sure. If the people say no.

SPIEGEL: Which people?

Obering: If the host nations say no, if the Czech Republic says the government does not approve it, if the Polish government does not approve it, then we won't build a facility there. This is not something we are forcing on a nation.

SPIEGEL: But you assume that the two countries will give their approval in the end?

Obering: I think the indications are that they will. The discussions we have had have been very, very good and very productive.

SPIEGEL: But you have a problem with the Democratic majority in the House, who want to cut funding for building a missile site in Europe.

Obering: The Senate already restored most of that money. So, if this plays out the way I think it will, it will take us the rest of this year at least to reach an agreement. Then we will have the money made available to us to begin construction probably by the end of next year, maybe the beginning of 2009.

SPIEGEL: You are very optimistic. The Democrats also have doubts about whether the system actually works. They also want to see greater NATO involvement. Besides, many countries are still skeptical.

Obering: There is no doubt in my mind that the system works. And I am not against more involvement with NATO at all. I have personally briefed the NATO council twice on the project, and I have also briefed the NATO-Russia Council twice. I do see support that has grown. In fact, it was reflected in the Secretary-General's comments after the April 19 meeting that he sees the alliance beginning to recognize that there is a threat that we have to pay attention to. He basically said no country stood up in opposition to the US proposal.

SPIEGEL: We know, however, that Berlin, for example, was very irritated about the statement.

Obering: I was at the meeting. I was there and no country stood up and objected. His comments were accurate. They reflected the meeting. So, if anybody wants to get mad, that is not for me to comment on.

SPIEGEL: It's hard to understand why you are in such a rush to reach a decision. Is the impression correct that it has more to do with the upcoming end of the Bush administration than the evolving missile threat from Iran?

Obering: No. I know that many people say, "Well, Iran cannot threaten Europe today," and that is a true statement. But that may not be true tomorrow. So what we have to do is base it on what we see happening for the future, not what is happening right now. We see an evolution of missile technology, just like in North Korea. We know these two states are collaborating. I think that you are going to see Iran very agressive in its missile development and test program. And they are flying missiles of ranges that far exceed anything they need, for example, in a conflict with Israel. That is a key indicator. So when that happens, what you don't want to be is behind the power curve where you find yourself having to say, "Oh, now we all understand. Now we need to get going." You have to keep ahead of that.

SPIEGEL: At what point do you see that real threat emerging?

Obering: Most of the intelligence experts say that sometime between 2010 and 2015, Iran will have the capability to threaten the United States. They would have the ability to threaten Europe earlier. That is what we should be focused on, not an internal conflict between NATO and Russia or the United States or whatever.

SPIEGEL: We believe the argument that there is still time to build a consensus in Europe rather than pushing too quickly to build the sites in Eastern Europe is very powerful.

Obering: Well, I respectfully disagree. So, even if we start site construction in the latter part of 2008, or early 2009, we would not be able to place an interceptor before 2011, we would not have it completed and operational until 2013. It takes time to do this. We are not trying to stop debate in NATO. We are not trying to stifle. But there is a sense of urgency with respect to the threat.

SPIEGEL: Do you really believe Iran or North Korea could fire a missile towards the US or Europe?

Obering: Back in 1972, when we signed the anti-ballistic missile treaty with the Soviet Union, there were about eight countries that had these weapons. Today, there are 20-plus countries and growing. And I think there is a very simple answer: Historically, there has been no defense against them, so Iran or Syria or whoever could see these as great equalizers in terms of weapons. They can use those to try to gain leverage, and they don't even have to use them as a result. They can hold cities hostage. They can say, "We can threaten." Imagine, with the British hostages several months ago, if Iran had long-range nuclear weapons, how that would have changed that whole calculation. We don't want countries like that, that have radical regimes, who may not be rational in the sense that we think, to have these types of weapons that can threaten mass populations.

SPIEGEL: But you could always strike back, so isn't deterrence alive and well?

Obering: I know this argument: "Well, wait, wouldn't we obliterate their country if they were to attack?" It depends. Think of the morality. Are we going to kill millions and millions of North Koreans because their leader, Kim Jong-Il, has gone off the deep end and attacked the United States? The same thing is true with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What if there is a small group of generals or military who take control? We don't know what the control mechanisms are for these weapons in their country. What if they decide they are going to strike a blow for Islam with the suicide bomber equivalent of a nation-state level? Are we going to kill millions and millions of Iranians because of that action? We must face the fact that in the 21st century, we may run into organizations or countries that are non-deterrable. They don't care. They are going to strike their blow, and that is it.

SPIEGEL: Iran behaves very aggressively, but it seems that there is no irrational attitude in this.

Obering: I don't know enough to say that, and I don't think anybody does. I don't think that we know the rationality of what goes on in the control and the decisions they make in that government.

SPIEGEL: So you believe the missile defense could prevent a broader, perhaps even nuclear, war?

Obering: Let me tell you a story that happened last summer. The North Koreans stacked a missile in the pad and they didn't tell anybody what was on top. We had serious minded people in this country, including a former secretary of defense under the Clinton administration, argue that we should preemptively attack that site. President Bush said "no." Instead he wants to build a missile defense. So the system gives the leadership another option as opposed to retaliation or preemption.

SPIEGEL: But again, if your arguments are that good, why not wait and give NATO a chance to come to a consensus.

Obering: Well, I think that that is going to happen. We aren't going to have an agreement until at least the end of the year. I am heading back in a few weeks to talk to NATO again, it will be discussed over the next six months, or even a year.

SPIEGEL: But in the end, you believe you will find an agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic?

Obering: Right.

SPIEGEL: There will be formal approval by NATO?

Obering: There is no formal approval request to NATO for the construction. By the way, that is also very conventional with the way NATO has done business in the past. Countries don't typically request NATO approval to develop indigenous capabilities and bring those to bear in a NATO response force. So we didn't ask NATO for permission to build an aircraft carrier and deploy it near Europe. Actually there are only very few programs that were NATO-developed, and frankly, we have now spent about $100 billion on missile defense in the United States. We shouldn't have to go spend NATO money to replicate a capability that we have already developed.

SPIEGEL: What was the reason for choosing sites in Poland and the Czech Republic? Technical?

Obering: Yes. We looked at the trajectories from Iran into Europe and from Iran into the United States. And then we said, which countries have the best location for coverage. Our interceptors have to fly out and go through their staging before they are able to intercept a missile. So, if you are too close, you can't do that. If you are too far away, you roll back the coverage. It turned out that the Czech Republic and Poland were at the top of that list.

SPIEGEL: Eastern Germany would work as well. And if you could convince the Germans to host the site, you could probably convince the rest of Europe.

Obering: Yes, eastern Germany would work but there are other options, countries that are also acceptable. If it doesn't work out with the Czechs and the Poles, then we will have to think again. But they are our preferred locations.

SPIEGEL: Do you believe that support in Europe will grow for the missile defense system?

Obering: Yes. I think most European nations now agree that Iran is acting very strange here with respect to their nuclear program. They are not being up front and forthright. Countries in Europe that only two years ago were saying, "Oh, this is just the Americans raising alarms," are now raising the alarms themselves.

SPIEGEL: Do you see any movement on the Russian side giving up the resistance?

Obering: I will be very candid with you. I first brought it up in this office, almost two and a half years ago. I traveled to Moscow, we explained to them that this is not against Russia. We have been trying to get a technical expert team together. We have invited them to visit the sites here in the United States.

SPIEGEL: Will they come?

Obering: I hope they will. We actually invited them to one of our flight tests in September 2005. They sent a delegate. Unfortunately he was a little late and we had already conducted the test. The invitation still stands. It's okay with us if they come and visit the sites in Europe. We have nothing to hide there.

SPIEGEL: Would your offer include the construction of a site in Russia?

Obering: Of course. In fact, I believe that that makes an awful lot of sense. It would be a combination of American and Russian technology. I would love to see us join together with NATO and Russia and deploy defenses that basically make these weapons obsolete. That would be a perfect goal.

Interview conducted by Konstantin von Hammerstein and Georg Mascolo.