Yesterday we posted some hostile reactions to President Barack Obama’s “secret letter” overture to the Russians to suspend the plans for a missile shield in Europe.  Today, we bring you a ringing endorsement of the letter, which Joshua Tucker of NYU argues will “isolate Iran, undermine Putin, and save us money.”  We can see Tucker’s point, and for some time we’ve argued that the missile shield is an invented distraction, but this familiar line of thinking is flawed by typical assumptions we see in the liberal camp:  that Russia has very much influence over Iran (they don’t), that the burden is upon the United States to give something up to a victimized Russia, and the idea that this concession would produce a change in Russian behavior.  The missile shield was never a good policy idea, but isn’t it also in Russia’s interest to prevent Iran from going nuclear?

But on closer inspection, it seems bizarre that this issue is souring relations between the two countries. A limited system comprising ten interceptors cannot threaten Russia’s ability to retaliate in a nuclear conflict, so Moscow need be concerned only if the current plan is just a down-payment on a more extensive future system. From Washington’s perspective, the system is an odd priority given that it is designed to protect Europe, not the United States, from attack. What’s more it remains unclear if the system even works. (Among other things, the rocket booster for the European interceptors has yet to be tested.)