On September 17th, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that he will be offering a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe, discontinuing the system set up by President George W. Bush.
 The old system consisted of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and advanced radar in the Czech Republic, as well as anti-missile bases in California and Alaska. The system in Europe could identify and destroy five long-range missiles fired from the Middle East, while the California and Alaska bases provided an early warning system for the U.S. The radar and interceptors would have been ready by 2015 at the earliest.1
The new system will employ sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles in the Middle East region by 2011 and upgraded SM-3s on the ground in Southern and Central Europe by 2015. The new system will use existing radar for detection purposes, will be able to respond to many missiles simultaneously, and will be able to respond to short- and medium-range weapons. The SM-3 interceptor missiles have been tested and proven, while the old system was not successfully tested. The bases in California and Alaska will remain as well.2
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates believes this system is more adaptable and flexible to changing threats. He specifically noted “Russia’s attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue.”3
The new system will be better equipped to face dangers from already-developed Iranian weapons. There is disagreement about how soon inter-continental missiles from either North Korea or Iran will be functional. Critics of the plan point to Iran’s launch of a satellite system that circled the globe reflecting the need for a long-range interceptor base to protect the U.S. East Coast as well as the West Coast.4
Within the U.S. and around the world there are a few common themes in the responses. Some believe that the U.S. made a proper move, as Iran would definitely not threaten Europe, its main trading partner, while Israel and Gulf countries remain a real target. Others are worried about the message the move sends to Russia. Some believe that the current system should stay in place, as a show of support to Poland and the Czech Republic or for strategic purposes to prevent long-range missile attacks on the U.S. Every writer provides his/her own spin that reflects their own country’s interests vis-a-vie the missile defense system.
Eastern Europe
Poland
Opinions vary in Poland among elected officials; however, some polls show that Polls were against the missile defense system, even after the Russian-Georgian crisis.5 A New Poland Express article provides opinions given by present and former Polish leaders:
Poland’s government has put a positive spin on the US decision to shelve a controversial anti missile shield despite claims that America has put closer relations with Russia ahead of Polish interests.
…“The words I've heard from President Barack Obama - after the change in the decision on the matter of the missile shield – Poland has the opportunity to gain an exclusive position," he [Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister] added.
“American has always cared only about its own interests, and those of others only serve the US. Now we have another example of this,” he said. “I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing towards this part of Europe. We should reconsider our approach to the United States.” [Lech Walesa, a former president]
“US ditches missile shield in Poland.” New Poland Express. September 18, 2009.
In a Der Spiegel interview, Former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski notes:
In terms of security, the Americans will come up with a different defense system, one that is more flexible and smarter. In political terms, what's important is that such a system should be better anchored within NATO structures…
Of course you could see Obama's decision as a triumph for the Russians… If Moscow now moves to do more to stop Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons, then that's useful for everyone's security…
There is no denying that the Czech Republic and Poland have become less important. America's strategic interests lie elsewhere -- in the direction of the Pacific and in China's direction… Ukraine, Belarus, the countries in the Caucasus region -- you can't say that all the standards have been met there, that we should welcome these countries into the family of democratic nations or that we can all predict what the political future in those countries holds. That is why one of the most important tasks for European politicians is to make sure that this region remains uppermost in the minds of the Americans.
'What Will America Expect in Return for Sacrificing Their Missile Shield?' SPIEGEL Interview with Former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski. Der Spiegel. September 18, 2009.
Robert Galea of the Warsaw Business Journal writes:
US President Obama's decision to abandon the missile shield has left the Polish government open to criticism and called into question the transatlantic friendship
… The prime minister’s half-hearted attempts to put a positive spin on the news did not keep the opposition from lambasting him.
“Donald Tusk has contributed to this failure,” Law and Justice (PiS) leader Jaros
| 
