The Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher repeats one highly logical but long ignored argument: If there exists some threat from Iran, it is a threat of short- and medium-range missiles that cannot endanger the United States, but only American forces and allies in the Middle East plus in southern Europe. However, the proposed U.S. interceptor site in Poland will not protect these areas.       


                                   •                 •                 •


Now, as you know, there are also issues with the European site. First, let's assume that our only objective is to provide the United States a "shoot-look-shoot" capability to defend against a potential Iranian long-range missile attack.  

Assume that other threats and geo-political considerations don't matter. Then, and only then, would the European GMD proposal would be attractive.  

But Iran has not developed a long-range missile capable of reaching the United States. Yet.  

If Iran were to do so in the future, the GMD interceptors currently deployed at Ft. Greely in Alaska should have the capability to protect the continental United States.  

The argument that the U.S. would be naked against an Iranian nuclear threat unless we deploy the GMD site in Europe is simply not right.  

But more importantly, while Iran is a ways away from developing an ICBM class missile, it already has the largest force of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in the Middle East. These systems are currently capable of targeting U.S. forces and our allies throughout the region. 

And guess what? The proposed GMD interceptor site in Poland would have little, if any, capability to counter the existing threat from Iran's short-and medium-range ballistic missiles.  

(…)


Source (American): Remarks to the MDA/AIAA 7th Annual U.S. Missile Defense Conference