Global Security Newswire, Rachel Oswald, 8 Feb 2012.

A senior White House official on Monday acknowledged that an agreement with Russia on missile defense should not be expected in the near term. Russian and U.S. officials in recent weeks have said they do not anticipate an accord being reached amid presidential campaigns in the two nations, but that depoliticized talks on Obama administration plans to deploy antimissile systems in Europe could be held after U.S. voters cast their ballots in November.

Responding to a question on whether he agreed with these sentiments, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said, “I would agree with the premise that it’s going to take more time to build that trust and have those discussions.”

For more than a year, Moscow and Washington have engaged in discussions about the Obama administration’s “phased adaptive approach” for European missile defense. The plan calls for fielding increasingly advanced Standard Missile 3 interceptors around Europe through 2020 as a stated hedge against a possible Iranian ballistic missile attack.

The administration hopes to draw Russia into collaboration on a broader NATO effort to defend Europe against missile threats. The Kremlin, though, says it does not trust U.S. assurances that the missile interceptors would not be aimed against Russian strategic nuclear weapons. It has demanded a legally enforceable pledge on the matter, a request rejected by the Obama administration and NATO.

Moscow also questions why future versions of the deployed SM-3 interceptor would be capable of targeting medium- and intermediate-range missiles, and possibly ICBMs, while Iran’s ballistic missile development does not yet approach such extended ranges.

“We are building a missile defense system in Europe which is not at all targeted against them,” Rhodes told an audience at the Center for American Progress in Washington. “We’ve been very clear with Russia that this is not directed at Russia,” he added.

NATO and U.S. officials have noted that the number of interceptors to be fielded in Europe would be vastly outnumbered by Russia’s arsenal of nuclear-armed missiles. While there has been hope of reaching an agreement on the matter before the military alliance’s May summit in Chicago, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen last week admitted the prospects did not look good for such an outcome.

The Obama foreign policy speechwriter said U.S. officials have learned from their engagement with Russian diplomats that “it is very important” to establish a basis of trust on missile defense going forward. “The Russians have been very clear that they are not yet moving forward” on the issue, Rhodes said.

Moscow has warned it would deploy short-range missiles to the Kaliningrad region - Russian territory that borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania - if an accord on missile defense cannot be reached. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last year also threatened to pull out of the New START treaty if a compromise is not struck.

The bilateral nuclear strategic arms reduction pact “was a landmark achievement” and the “most comprehensive arms control treaty we’ve had in some time”, Rhodes said. The Obama administration holds up New START as one of its signature foreign policy achievements. The treaty requires both Russia and the United States by 2018 to cut their counts of deployed long-range nuclear warheads to 1,550 and the number of fielded strategic warhead delivery platforms to 700.

The White House intends to hold new talks with Moscow on further nuclear arms cuts. However, more confidence is needed here as well before serious negotiations can begin, Rhodes said. He did not offer comments on how the former Cold War rivals might increase confidence toward resolving differences on missile defense or additional nuclear arms cutbacks.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller earlier this month said U.S. negotiators were in a “homework period” of researching issues related to potential arms control negotiations with Russia and were not yet ready to begin new formal talks (see GSN, Jan. 3).

Rhodes also gave a robust defense of President Obama’s policy on Iran, which has been repeatedly criticized by Republican presidential contenders and members of Congress.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney this month accused Obama of not going far enough in ordering national economic sanctions against Iran. Rival GOP contender Rick Santorum went so far as to pledge to order military strikes on Iranian atomic infrastructure if they are not opened to international weapons inspectors --- something the White House has not promised to do (see GSN, Jan. 3).

Rhodes noted that at the start of the Obama administration, much of the international community viewed Iran’s controversial nuclear development as a matter to be dealt with between Tehran and Washington.

“We made the issue not about the United States and Iran but about Iran and the international community” and the Iranian government’s failure to honor its international obligations, the speechwriter said.

Leaders in a number of Western nations believe Iran’s atomic activities, particularly its enrichment of uranium to increased levels, are aimed at developing a weapons capability in violation of the nation’s commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Tehran maintains its atomic program is strictly peaceful.

Largely under the leadership of the United States and with significant support from the United Kingdom, France and Germany, a fourth U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programs was approved in 2010.

Obama on Dec. 31 signed legislation carrying another set of sanctions against Iran, and his administration has cheered the European Union’s recent move to pass an embargo on Iranian oil purchases by member nations. Additionally, the White House is working to convince nations including China, Japan and South Korea to order boycotts of their own against Iranian oil imports.

“Right now I think Iran is faced with a greater array of pressures than they’ve ever faced before,” Rhodes said, largely giving credit to Obama’s emphasis on building a broad international consensus on the need to halt Iran’s nuclear development.

“I think we’ve done more in the last three years than any other U.S. administration has done before to deal with this challenge of Iran’s nuclear program,” he said.

“That investment in diplomacy and that investment in relationships has allowed us to dramatically impact Iran’s economy and its government. We can steadily dial up the pressure and increase the cost on Iran for remaining outside its obligations,” Rhodes continued.