The News: Not within 24 hours of President Obama's decision to down-grade America's forward based missle defense in Czecho-Polakia than the New York Times ponders "Now, the question is whether Russia will do more to help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons." [ here ]
The Note: Well... the quibus of the matter was sort of obvious, but the Times might have waited for a tad more decentish interval.
Anyone who believed the prior administration's claim that America's forward based defense in Eastern Europe was directed at protecting Paris from Persia is probably one of those person who also believes you can get "new growth" hair from a spray can. Clear and explicit NeoCon doctrine has always called for the encirclement and constriction of Russia. That's what Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia and Turkestan were all about. Certainly the Russians weren't fooled.
The only people fooled by the claim that the missles in Poland were aimed at "defending" against missiles in Iran were the New York Times and the gullible intelectufools who slurp their thought from the Times' trough.
This is not to say that the USA and its backer doesn't fuss about Iran. It does, obsessionally. It is simply to say that the forward based defense perimeter (to use NeoCon jargon) in Eastern Europe was directed east not south. Duh.
Now comes Obama, "improving" relations with Russia, dusting off the ol' Clinton-Albright pogey bait of NATO cooperation and what not. As a sweetner Obama downgrades (but does not entirely remove) our eastern defense shield. Okeee... quiz of the week: quid pro quo?
What do we need from the Russians? Help in committing geo-political suicide in AfPakistan? They are already gladly providing that. Trashing hardware contracts with Venezuela? For Venezuela, Richard, for Venezuela? Nah... all the big boys peddle armaments; the price is too much. Disuading Russia from rocking with Brazil, India and China to the tune of "It's our party and we'll laugh it we want to" ? Nah.. the payoff is not enough.
So what's left?
Assuming supposed cold-war realities, from an American point of view the trade off is actually pretty insane. We give up an assumedly needed deterrence against real Russian missles in order to protect ourselves and our "European partners" from non-existent, long range Iranian missles?
Qui quibus quod quoque qui quae quo?