This week I’m finding it increasingly odd when I compare our country’s response to Iran vs. Russia. When Iran tells the world that they will “wipe Israel off the face of the map” we hear from numerous sources in our country that we will “take them at their word.” This takes place while Iran, while certainly dangerous on their own turf, is widely acknowledged as not having any nuclear weapons. (At least not yet.) Their enemy, Israel, is the only nuclear power in the region and has a formidable military force. Fair enough.
But strangely enough, when Russia tells us that they may take military action against any of their neighbors who allow American missile defense systems near their borders, a different response is seen from our Secretary of State.
Rice dismissed blustery comments from Russian leaders who say Warsaw’s hosting of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles just 115 miles from Russia’s westernmost frontier opens the country up to attack.
Such comments “border on the bizarre frankly,” Rice said, speaking to reporters traveling with her in Warsaw.
“When you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988,” Rice said. “It’s 2008 and the United States has a … firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland’s territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it’s probably not wise to throw these threats around.”
Compared to Iran, Russia is a formidable nuclear foe with significant conventional forces who (oh by the way) has already gone to the mat with one of their neighbors. They not only have the ability to lash out, but a demonstrated history of doing so. The question then becomes, why would we not take them at their word as we do with the Iranians? And would you not factor this into decisions regarding putting missile defense systems a few miles from Russia’s borders?