About us   Editorial Board   Advisory Board   Contact us  


In this section, we publish the weekly analysis of the major events taking place in the Caucasus and beyond. The Caucasus Update is written by our Senior Editor Alexander Jackson. Click here to subscribe.

The Missile Defence Shift: Implications for the Caucasus, CU Issue 48, September 22, 2009

President Obama’s decision to scrap Bush-era plans for missile defence bases in Poland and the Czech Republic was seen as “a huge shift in American foreign and defence policy” by many observers (BBC, September 19). Quite rightly, in many respects. The decision removes one of the biggest obstacles to US cooperation with Russia, which saw the shield not as a defence against Iranian missiles but as protection against Russia’s own nuclear arsenal. The hope of the White House is that the decision will lead to greater partnership with Moscow on critical issues: principally, imposing sanctions on Iran.

Whether or not the abandonment of the plan is the correct move depends, mainly, on one’s political viewpoint. Republicans in the US have been predictably furious, with one comparing the decision to appeasement of the Nazis (Politico.com, September 18). This reaction ignores the fact that the move was based on thorough intelligence assessments, and was backed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defence Secretary. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that the decision was taken without privately consulting Moscow and being reassured that Russia would, in fact, back stronger sanctions against Iran (although whether those reassurances are trustworthy is hard to tell). In any case, missile defence has not been scrapped, as critics claim. Indeed, missiles are still going to be deployed in Europe, as well as at sea, and will actually be deployed earlier than under the Bush-era plan.

But the dismay in pro-US eastern European states is evident. There is a sense that the new US Administration is not as committed to the expansion of NATO and other Euro-Atlantic structures as the previous one. Georgia would be expected to share this disappointment, but it hopes the hunt for more effective bases for missile defence may increase its importance.

This is because the Caucasus has emerged as one of the most important possible locations for a revamped missile defence plan. Situated on a direct path between Iran and Europe, the region has been discussed as a possible host site for early-warning systems and missiles for years.

In 2007 Russia offered to share its lease of Azerbaijan’s Qabala radar station as an alternative to the eastern European sites, but the US rejected the idea. It may now be reconsidered. If Azerbaijan agrees to host US forces, Baku’s relationship with Tehran would be likely to deteriorate. This would probably be compensated for, however, by the new geostrategic significance which Azerbaijan would gain. It would extend the US military footprint firmly to the shores of the Caspian, and (depending on how quickly the lease was made) could be linked in with a more robust transport corridor through the Caucasus to Afghanistan.

Georgia has also been suggested as a possible location for the radar by some commentators (Eurasianet, September 18). Although this could be expected to provoke fury in Russia once again, the difference is that the system in the Caucasus would use an X-band radar – this would not be able to ‘see’ in all directions like the radar planned for Eastern Europe. The strategic location of the Caucasus means that it could host an X-band radar simply facing south, towards Iran, reassuring Russia that its missiles could not be monitored.

It seems unlikely that Georgia would be chosen to host the system. For one, the system already exists in Azerbaijan. Building and installing a new radar system would be unnecessary and expensive – a significant consideration in the current economic climate. Secondly, it is unlikely that the White House would wish to reward Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili with a radar system, which would tighten the relationship between Washington and Tbilisi. For the Obama Administration, Saakashvili has been something of an embarrassing remnant of the Bush era (like Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai): a leader whose rashness and irrational decisions do more harm than good to America’s foreign policy. Even if the radar could not see into Russian territory, the Kremlin would probably oppose the deployment of such a system in Georgia because of its loathing for President Saakashvili. Working alongside Russian forces in Qabala would pose no such problems.

Would Azerbaijan agree to host a US radar system, given the hostility that this would create in neighbouring Iran? It seems likely. The often tense relationship between Baku and Tehran flared up in recent months over the visit of Israeli President Shimon Peres to Azerbaijan. It is also clear that Azerbaijan would not welcome a nuclear-armed Iran, especially given Tehran’s warm relationship with Armenia. Baku would be forced to seriously readjust its strategic thinking regarding a possible military solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict if Armenia was supported by a nuclear Iran. In this sense, hosting a facility which would help to contain any possible threat from Tehran, as well as strengthening its long-term strategic relationship with the US, would be a positive step for Azerbaijan.

However, Russia may be able to work with the US directly, and in doing so curb the US influence in Azerbaijan. In late 2009, a radar station at Aramvir in southern Russia will become operational (RIA Novosti, August 6). Moscow has also expressed its willingness to work with American forces here – in doing so, it may be trying to draw Washington away from closer cooperation from Baku. It would also grant Russia powerful leverage, as it would retain the right to kick US forces out of the radar station.

Turkey’s role in the reshaped missile defence plan remains unclear. Days before the eastern Europe plan was scrapped, the US said that it was considering a sale of advanced Patriot anti-aircraft missiles to Turkey. The Washington Times reported that, although the Pentagon denies any link, siting these missiles in Turkey could replace the Polish base (Washington Times, September 17). This attempt may fail. Ankara’s policy of ‘zero problems with neighbours’ would be clearly contradicted by hosting missiles aimed at Iran; it would only agree to missiles under a NATO framework, according to an unnamed diplomat (Sundays Zaman, September 20). It seems that until the US can secure Turkey’s cooperation, it will be content with using ship-based missiles in the Mediterranean.

The plan to scrap missile defence in Eastern Europe could shift the geostrategic balance of power in the Caucasus. It seems likely that in case of a joint use of the Qabala radar station Azerbaijan would become firmly integrated within the US military’s global defence network, whilst Georgia could receive firm proof of its demotion from its previous status as a strong US ally. Turkey, meanwhile, must decide whether it places more value on relations with its unpredictable neighbour, or with its superpower ally. If it does so, and if Russia fulfils its side of the bargain and supports strong sanctions, Iran may conclude that it is rapidly running out of friends in Eurasia.

"The Missile Defence Shift: Implications for the Caucasus, CU Issue 48, September 22, 2009" | 1 comment | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

by Novkhany on Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:51 pm
Azerbaijan may be still too cautious of Iran to even think about the advantages of US deployment in Gabala. It is indeed bordering on fear and such irrational moves as Azerbaijan voting for Iran in 2008 UN SC non-perm. member elections, are not to be excluded in the future


  Caspian Compromise Backfires for Russia and Iran, CU Issue 83, November 24, 2010
  Turkey in a Tight Spot on Missile Defense, CU Issue 82, November 11, 2010
  The OSCE and Kyrgyzstan’s Election, CU Issue 81, October 30, 2010
  Unblocking the US-Azerbaijan Relationship, CU Issue 80, October 07, 2010
  Nabucco Pipeline: Quo Vadis?, CU Issue 79, September 30, 2010
  Russia tightens its grip in the South Caucasus, CU Issue 78, August 23, 2010
  Armenian Politics: Rigidity Versus Flexibility, CU Issue 77, August 10, 2010
  Russia and Georgia: Ready To Talk?, CU Issue 76, July 21, 2010
  Can the US walk and chew gum at the same time?, CU Issue 75, July 9, 2010
  The Kyrgyzstan Crisis – A Qualified Success for Turkish Diplomacy?, CU Issue 74, June 24, 2010
  Brussels downgrades the Caucasus, CU Issue 73, June 07, 2010
  NATO’s New Strategic Concept and the Caspian Region, CU Issue 72, June 01, 2010
  Joe Biden and European Security, CU Issue 71, May 13, 2010
  Behind the US-Azerbaijan row, CU Issue 70, May 6, 2010
  Turkey and Iran: The risks of failure, CU Issue 69, April 30, 2010
  Kazakhstan, the OSCE, and the crisis in Kyrgyzstan, CU Issue 68, April 19, 2010
  The Implications of the Moscow Bombings, CU Issue 67, April 12, 2010
  Iran Manoeuvres for a role in Karabakh, CU Issue 66, April 5, 2010
  The EU and Abkhazia: Between a rock and a hard place, CU Issue 65, March 16, 2010
  Fallout from the US ‘Genocide’ vote, CU Issue 64, March 9, 2010
  Ukraine's elections and future of GUAM, CU Issue 63, February 10, 2010
  Less Democracy, More Security: Kazakhstan and the OSCE, CU Issue 62, January 18, 2010
  Tackling the North Caucasus Insurgency: Development or Rhetoric?, CU Issue 61, January 11, 2010
  The Caspian Region in 2010, CU Issue 60, January 4, 2010
  The Caspian Region in 2010, CU Issue 59, December 31, 2009
  The Turkmenistan-China Pipeline Changes the Energy Balance, CU Issue 58, December 21, 2009
  Russia’s European Security Treaty, CU Issue 57, December 7, 2009
  The ‘Kidnapping War’ in Georgia and its Implications, CU Issue 56, December 3, 2009
  Azerbaijan Shifts its Energy Priorities, CU Issue 55, November 23, 2009
  The South Caucasian States and Afghanistan, CU Issue 54, November 11, 2009
  Is Turkey turning East?, CU Issue 53, November 2, 2009
  What is Russia’s Gameplan for Iran?, CU Issue 52, October 26, 2009
  Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan: Where Next?, CU Issue 51, October 19, 2009
  The Armenians of Georgia: A New Flashpoint in the Caucasus?, CU Issue 50, October 12, 2009
  Turkey’s EU Membership: Will The ‘Armenian Opening’ Help?, CU Issue 49, October 5, 2009
  The Missile Defence Shift: Implications for the Caucasus, CU Issue 48, September 22, 2009
  Rising Tensions in the Black Sea , CU Issue 47, September 14, 2009
  Armenia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan: The Clock Is Ticking, CU Issue 46, September 7, 2009
  The Battle of the Bases in Central Asia, CU Issue 45, August 31, 2009
  Russia, Israel, and the S-300s, CU Issue 44, August 24, 2009
  The motivations behind Turkey's 'Kurdish Initiative', CU Issue 43, August 17, 2009
  The Implications of the Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan Dispute, CU Issue 42, August 10, 2009
  What has changed since the August war?, CU Issue 41, August 3, 2009
  The Internal Dynamics of Armenia’s Karabakh Policy, CU Issue 40, July 20, 2009
  Gazprom’s Baku Triumph, CU Issue 39, July 06, 2009
  Ingushetia: The New Chechnya?, CU Issue 38, June 29, 2009
  Georgias Economy - A Matter for Diplomats, CU Issue 37, June 22, 2009
  ‘Progress’ In The Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Process, CU Issue 36, June 08, 2009
  Iran's Azerbaijanis and the presidential election, CU Issue 35, June 01, 2009
  Nabucco and South Stream - The Race Heats Up, CU Issue 34, May 25, 2009
  China and Central Asia, CU Issue 33, May 19, 2009
  Russia, Georgia, and NATO - A Bad Week, CU Issue 32, May 11, 2009
  The Obama Administration’s Emerging Caucasus Policy, CU Issue 31, April 27, 2009
  Integration and Division in the Caspian Sea, CU Issue 30, April 20, 2009
  The Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement - Implications for the South Caucasus, CU Issue 29, April 13, 2009
  Turkey's local elections and Armenian issue, CU Issue 28, April 6, 2009
  Is There Life Left In The Nabucco Project?, CU Issue 27, March 30, 2009
  Problems and Prospects for Russian Military Reform, CU Issue 26, March 23, 2009
  Russia and Georgia: Not back to war, CU Issue 25, March 16, 2009
  Armenia: Heading towards crisis?, CU Issue 24, March 9, 2009
  Drug trafficking in the Caucasus, CU Issue 23, February 23, 2009
  Russian-led military block: A real counterweight to NATO?, CU Issue 22, February 16, 2009
  Are the International Missions in Georgia still relevant?, CU Issue 21, February 9, 2009
  Israel and Azerbaijan: Baku’s Balancing Act, CU Issue 20, February 2, 2009
  The North Caucasus in 2009: A Bleak Forecast, CU Issue 19, January 26, 2009
  The Military Balance in Nagorno-Karabakh, CU Issue 18, January 19, 2009
  Russia, Iran, and Barack Obama in 2009, Part II, CU Issue 17, January 12, 2009
  Looking forward to 2009 in the Caucasus and beyond, Part I, CU Issue 16, January 5, 2009
  The opportunities and the risks of NATO’s new supply routes, CU Issue 15, December 22, 2008
  The Black Sea Ambitions of Armenia, CU Issue 14, December 15, 2008
  Another Small Step for Nabucco, CU Issue 13, December 8, 2008
  Will Saakashvili survive politically?, CU Issue 12, December 1, 2008
  The latest fashion: conflict mediation, CU Issue 11, November 24, 2008
  The Baku Energy Summit, CU Issue 10, November 17, 2008
  Obama and the Caucasus, CU Issue 9, November 10, 2008
  Kazakhstan's oil options, CU Issue 8, November 3, 2008
  Is the Minsk Group being sidelined?, CU Issue 7, October 27, 2008
  Gas and oil developments in the Caspian region, CU Issue 6, October 20, 2008
  Where next for the Georgian peace process?, CU Issue 5, October 8, 2008
  Unrest in the North Caucasus, CU Issue 4, September 29, 2008
  Saakashvili's future, CU Issue 3, September 22, 2008
  Iran after the Georgian War, CU Issue 2, September 15, 2008
  Football diplomacy, CU Issue 1, September 8, 2008
  © 2006-2010 CRIA
  All rights reserved
About us
Editorial Board
Advisory Board
Our Authors
Current Issue
Back Issues
Caucasus Update
Call for papers
Submit a paper
Contact Us
Join us on Facebook