Even if President-elect Obama is unenthusiastic about deploying the European Missile Defense (EMD) system as a shield against Iranian missiles, Obama now must stand firm in favor of building the EMD system or face bullying for the rest of his term as president, an analyst warned.

If Obama drops plans to build the EMD system, he will be seen as caving to intimidation by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, said Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank.

"The Obama administration should not give in to Russian threats," Cohen stated in a paper published last week. "If it does, it will signal that the new U.S. president-elect can be pressured on other issues. Even if Obama were open to the idea of delaying or canceling the deployment, to do so following Russian missile threats would be an unmistakable sign of weakness."

Only hours after Obama won election Nov. 4, Medvedev, in his annual state of the nation address to Russian legislators, threatened to station Iskander missiles in an enclave near Poland, where EMD silos for interceptors would be built. The EMD radar would go in the Czech Republic.

It isn’t the first time that top Russian officials and military officers have threatened to use missiles, even nuclear-tipped weapons, to annihilate the EMD if the United States builds it. The Boeing Co. [BA] leads the program.

Russians assert that the U.S. missile interceptors could be used to counter Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), an argument which U.S. leaders say is sheer fantasy. The interceptors aren’t fast enough to catch Russian ICBMs, and there would be only 10 EMD interceptors versus the hundreds of Russian missiles and warheads, U.S. leaders note.

What isn’t hallucinatory, however, is the growing threat from Iran, Cohen said. Iran is a rogue regime that stiff-arms Western demands that it stop producing nuclear materials. Iran also is obtaining ever-longer-range missiles. And Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be wiped from the map, and that Israel soon shall cease to exist.

"Unlike Russia’s fantasies of Western ‘aggression,’ the threat posed by the Iranian missile program is real," Cohen pointed out. "Just [this month], Iran tested an indigenous medium range missile that combines liquid and solid fuel technology and can fly 2,000 kilometers [1,243 miles], with longer range missiles in the works. Therefore, the U.S. and its European allies cannot afford to back out of the missile defense deployment in Poland."

Cohen said there actually may be more than one hidden Russian reason to move Iskander missiles near Poland. (The missiles can be armed with conventional or nuclear warheads.)

First, Russia may use its threat to deploy Iskanders as a clever means to set major European nations against the United States. Additionally, Russia may wish to deploy Iskanders to offset weaknesses of its forces.

"The Kremlin and the Russian military are keeping the myth of a Western military menace alive for their own ends while using the threat of short-range missile deployment in Kaliningrad and the Baltic Fleet for two reasons," Cohen explained.

"First, the Russian military, despite its victories in Georgia, remains conventionally weaker than the NATO forces. According to U.S. military sources, Moscow may be seeking a pretext to integrate tactical nuclear systems, such as the dual-capacity conventional/nuclear Iskander, into frontline units that would otherwise be too weak to counter NATO. These integrated systems could also hit a broad range of targets in Europe, such as air bases, depots, and a concentration of NATO troops within the 280-kilometer range of the Iskander missile."

And there is a cold political calculation in the Russian threat to deploy Iskanders, Cohen continued:

"Medvedev’s recent declaration of willingness to not deploy the missiles to Kaliningrad in exchange for a cancellation of the [EMD] missile defense system reveals the political motive behind the initial declaration of intent to deploy the Iskanders: By using missile deployment as a bargaining chip, the Kremlin secures a means of further dividing Europe and United States over the missile system, a tactic reminiscent of the U.S.-Europe rift over the deployment of [ICBM] SS-20s in the 1980s."

This may involve, to some extent, ruffled feathers and injured egos in Europe.

"Germany and France in particular are unhappy with the U.S. not initially asking their permission for the [EMD] missile defense deployment," Cohen observed. "This rancor furthers weakens the alliance and adds fodder to EU security and defense policy advocates’ opposition to NATO. Moscow counts on bolstering missile defense skeptics among American allies in Europe if it places nuclear weapons on Poland’s border. Such skepticism, the Kremlin believes, is strengthening its argument that the U.S. missile interceptors will lead to a dangerous arms escalation in the region."

While perhaps reprehensible, Cohen admitted that the Russian ploy just may work.

"Russia’s threat is indeed a shrewd geopolitical move," he wrote. "By opposing Washington, Moscow is trying to drive new wedges between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe, and between Europe and the U.S.," Cohen explained. "As a major source of Europe’s energy supply, Russia has a tremendous amount of economic influence over U.S. allies in the region, enough to make its wedge-driving strategy a realistic threat."

This could have negative results, Cohen continued.

"The lack of a unified Western position allows Moscow, also through the means of its energy diplomacy, to apply the ancient Roman principle of divide et impera to its relations with the Europeans and Americans. Without a strong and unified response from the West, Russia will be able to maximize its advantages in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet space while minimizing its weaknesses and thereby achieve gains at the expense of [the] U.S. and its allies."

Cohen voiced concern that seeds of division are being sown not only by Russia, but perhaps by members of Obama’s inner circle.

"One hopes that these disagreements do not hurt America’s relations with one of its closest European allies, Poland," Cohen wrote. "However, many in Warsaw are worried, as Obama’s foreign policy advisor, Denis McDonough, has contradicted [Polish] President Lech Kaczinski’s claims that Obama is unequivocally committed to stationing missile interceptors in Poland. Obama previously said that he supports deploying the system when the technology is proved to be workable and if the project is pragmatic and cost- effective.

"Zbigniew Brzezinski, another Obama advisor, also voiced opposition for the anti-missile deployment. However, at this point, if the deployment is postponed it would signal Washington’s weakness and give Moscow a strategic win."

Now that the U.S. election is over, it is time for Obama to face the realities of actually governing, rather than focusing on what various interest groups desire, Cohen indicated. Obama ran on a platform appealing to some dovish Democratic groups, including those wishing to see U.S. forces withdrawn from Iraq.

"The Obama administration should not derail or postpone the missile shield in Europe, but it should continue efforts to convince the Kremlin that the system is not aimed against Russia," Cohen counseled. "Giving in to the Kremlin’s demands would be the second strategic victory Moscow would achieve after recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are parts of Georgia."

Russia invaded Georgia, a former Soviet Union puppet state that objects strongly to Russian troops invading its territory.

"The United States and Europe need to prevent Moscow from dictating Europe’s security policy or interfering with U.S.-Polish strategic cooperation," Cohen stated.

"The Obama Administration should reject Medvedev’s missile threats, exposing them as a throw-back to the Cold War. The great irony and blunder of Russia’s actions is that had Moscow acted more responsibly, the Obama administration might have delayed the European missile defense system altogether. Now the Obama administration must resist Russian pressure, if only to avoid the appearance of weakness and to discourage Russia’s strategic revisionism."

To read Cohen’s paper titled "Europe Anti-Missile Defense System: Standing Up to Russia’s Threats" in full, please go to http://www.heritage.org on the Web.