U.S., Israel Postpone Joint Missile Exercises

JERUSALEM - Israel and the United States have agreed to postpone a major military defence exercise scheduled for spring, a senior security official Jan. 15 Sunday, amid rising regional tension over Iran's nuclear programme.

"Israel and the United States have agreed to postpone the maneuver planned for spring," the official said on condition of anonymity.

"The exercises will take place between now and the end of 2012," the official added, without elaborating.

Earlier, public radio said the "Austere Challenge 12" exercise would be pushed back to the end of 2012 over unspecified budgetary concerns, citing military sources.

Israeli Army radio, citing a defense official, said it was being postponed to avoid "unnecessary headlines in such a tense period."

The joint maneuver was to have been the biggest yet between the two allies and was seen as an opportunity to display their joint military strength at a time of growing concern about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Israel, the United States and much of the international community accuse Iran of using its nuclear program to mask a weapons drive, a charge Tehran denies.

The postponement appeared to suggest fears the exercise could dangerously ramp up regional tensions, at a time when Iran has already threatened to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz - a chokepoint for one fifth of the world's traded oil - in the event of a military strike or severe tightening of international sanctions over its nuclear program.

Meanwhile, the United States sent Iran a letter over its threatened closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said Jan. 15, without revealing the letter's contents.

"The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, sent a letter to Mohammad Khazaie, Iran's U.N. representative, which was conveyed by the Swiss ambassador, and finally Iraqi President Jalal Talabani delivered its contents to officials" in Iran, the official IRNA news agency quoted Ramin Mehmanparast as saying.

"We are in the process of studying the letter and if necessary we will respond."

Last month, the Israelis insisted the joint maneuvers were planned in advance and denied they were related to Iran.

"The exercise scenario involves notional, simulated events as well as some field training and is not in response to any real-world event," the military said.

The postponement was not expected to affect a visit to Israel by top U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is scheduled to arrive this week and meet with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz.

But the delay was announced as reports suggested unease in U.S.-Israeli relations over the best response to Iran's nuclear program, and after an Israeli official voiced "disappointment" at Washington's approach.

Washington has spearheaded a push for international sanctions against Iran, including on its oil exports and financial institutions.

But Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon told public radio he thought U.S. President Barack Obama's administration should be tougher.

"France and Britain understand that the sanctions must be strengthened, in particular against the Iranian Central Bank," Yaalon said. "The U.S. Senate is also in favor, but the U.S. government is hesitating, fearing higher oil prices in an election year. It's disappointing."

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, speaking Jan. 15 ahead of a trip to Britain, also accused the international community of dragging its feet.

"It is regrettable that the international community has not yet used all the means at its disposal to stop the Iranian nuclear program," he told public radio.

Israel has made no secret of its desire to see crippling sanctions imposed on Iran in a bid to slow its nuclear development, and reports suggest it has also taken other actions to delay the program.

The Jewish state is suspected of involvement both in a computer worm that reportedly set back Iran's nuclear efforts, as well as a campaign of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

Media reports have pointed the finger at Israel's intelligence agency Mossad.

Foreign Policy magazine reported that Israel's actions had created friction with Washington, and The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 13 that U.S. officials had warned Israel against unilateral military action against Iran.

Yaalon said Jan. 15 that a military strike remained a last resort for Israel.

"Israel must defend itself. I hope that we will not arrive at that point," he said.

U.S. Draws Up Contingencies in Case Israel Attacks Iran: Report

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government is concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran over U.S. objections, and has stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region, The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 13.

The newspaper said U.S. President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a series of private messages to Israeli leaders, warning about the dire consequences of a strike.

Obama spoke by telephone Jan. 12 with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week, the report said.

The report said that the U.S. military was preparing for a number of possible responses to an Israeli strike, including assaults by pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Up to 15,000 U.S. diplomats, federal employees and contractors still remain in Iraq.

To help deter Iran, the United States is maintaining 15,000 troops in Kuwait, and has moved a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf area, the report said.

N. Korea Test-Fires Short-Range Missiles: Official

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea test-fired three short-range missiles off its east coast this week in an apparently routine exercise, a South Korean official said Jan. 13.

The North lobbed what appeared to be KN-02 missiles with a range of 75 miles into the Sea of Japan on Jan. 11, the defense ministry official said on condition of anonymity.

The North frequently conducts such short-range tests, but their timing sometimes coincides with periods of tension.

It reportedly test-fired two short-range missiles off its east coast on Dec. 19, the same day it announced the death of leader Kim Jong-Il.

Kim's son Kim Jong-Un has been proclaimed supreme leader and has been officially appointed commander of the 1.2-million-strong military.

The North has stressed that its stance will not change under its new young chief and that the "songun," or military-first, policy will continue.

On Jan. 8 state media showed Kim Jong Un driving a tank and giving orders to artillery, navy and air force units in an apparent attempt to bolster his credentials with the world's fourth-largest armed forces.

The following day the military held a mass rally and vowed to become human "rifles and bombs" to protect him.

Australia Ranked 1st, N. Korea Last on Nuke Safety

WASHINGTON - Australia has the tightest security controls among nations with nuclear material while North Korea poses the world's greatest risks, a new index by experts said Jan. 11.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative, in a project led by former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn and the Economist Intelligence Unit, aims to draw attention to steps that nations can take to ensure the safety of the world's most destructive weapons.

Among 32 nations that possess at least one kilogram of weapons-usable nuclear materials, Australia was ranked as the most secure. It was followed by European nations led by Hungary, the Czech Republic and Switzerland.

On the bottom of the list, North Korea was ranked as the least secure of its nuclear material, edging out Pakistan.

The index, which gave rankings on a scale of 100, also listed Iran, Vietnam and India below the 50-point threshold.

"This is not about congratulating some countries and chastising others. We are highlighting the universal responsibility of states to secure the world's most dangerous materials," said Nunn, who has long been active on nuclear safety.

Nunn, a Democrat who represented Georgia in the Senate from 1972 until early 1997, voiced concern that the world had a "perfect storm" - an ample supply of weapons-usable nuclear materials and terrorists who want them.

"We know that to get the materials they need, terrorists will go where the material is most vulnerable. Global nuclear security is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain," he said.

The index, timed ahead of the March summit on nuclear security in South Korea, called for the world to set benchmarks and to hold nations accountable for nuclear safety. It also urged nations to stop increasing stocks of weapons-usable material and to make public their security regulations.

North Korea has tested two nuclear bombs and in 2009 renounced a U.S.-backed agreement on denuclearization. The world has watched warily since last month as young Kim Jong-Un takes over as leader from his late father Kim Jong-Il.

Pakistan has vigorously defended its right to nuclear weapons. The father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted in 2004 that he ran a nuclear black market selling secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea but later retracted his remarks.

Australia does not have nuclear weapons and supports their abolition. But it has a security alliance with the United States and holds the world's largest reserves of uranium.

Of acknowledged nuclear weapons states, Britain scored best at 10th among the 32 countries. The United States ranked 13th.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative also released a separate index of security conditions in countries without significant nuclear materials, saying they could be used as safe havens or transit points. Somalia, which is partially under the control of the al-Qaida-linked Shebab movement and has effectively lacked a central government for two decades, was ranked last among the 144 countries surveyed.

Other countries that ranked near the bottom included Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Eritrea and Chad.

On the top of the list, Finland was ranked as the most secure nation among those without nuclear material. It was followed by Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Slovenia and Romania.

North Korea: U.S. Offered Food for Nuke Shutdown

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea said Jan. 11 that the United States had offered food aid and a suspension of sanctions if it halted its uranium enrichment program.

The comments by a foreign ministry spokesman to Pyongyang's official news agency were the first by the North on the issue.

Before the sudden death of the North's leader Kim Jong-Il on Dec. 17, there were several media reports that such an agreement was imminent.

At talks in July last year, Washington "proposed to take confidence-building steps such as suspension of sanctions, as well as food aid" in return for a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment, the North's spokesman said.

Experts say the uranium program disclosed in November 2010 could give the communist state a second way to make nuclear weapons. The disclosure spurred efforts to revive stalled six-party nuclear disarmament negotiations.

The U.S. and North Korea last year held two rounds of bilateral talks aimed at restarting the negotiations last held in December 2008.

A third round was reportedly scheduled in Beijing before the announcement of Kim's death put the process on hold.

The spokesman's statement suggested that a deal was still on the cards if the U.S. raised the amount of food it is willing to offer. "We will watch if the U.S. truly wants to build confidence," it said.

Washington says any decision to offer humanitarian food aid would not be linked to other issues, but the spokesman accused the United States of politicizing the issue.

Robert King, U.S. special envoy for North Korean human rights, met senior North Korean foreign ministry official Ri Gun in Beijing in December to discuss a possible resumption of U.S. food aid.

South Korean media reports at the time said the North had agreed to suspend its uranium program while the U.S. would provide up to 240,000 tons of food.

The U.S. pledged 500,000 tons of rice in 2008. Shipments stopped the following year amid questions over transparency of the distribution, and Pyongyang told the Americans to leave.

The North's spokesman said Jan. 11 the U.S. had failed to provide 330,000 tons of the amount promised three years ago.

In recent talks it "has drastically changed the amount and items of provision contrary to the originally promised food aid", the spokesman said, adding this raised doubts about Washington's willingness to build confidence.

The U.S. is offering high-energy biscuits and similar nutritional supplements in its latest package, rather than rice which could be diverted to the military or the elite.

UN agencies that visited in February 2011 said six million North Koreans - a quarter of the population - need urgent aid in a nation where hundreds of thousands died in a famine in the 1990s.

An AirSea Battle on the Potomac

It is clear from last month's commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor that this disaster continues to impact the U.S. psyche and national strategy. "The next Pearl Harbor" has been a common theme in reports regarding 9/11.

One can assume the recently developed and classified AirSea Battle Concept has a similar vista. Addressing the "anti-access/area denial" environment, it purportedly discusses the growing influence of China and the importance of Asia to America's national interests. As the name states, air and sea power will be critical to the attainment of U.S. national interests.

While analogies to Pearl Harbor are understandable, they may be misleading on the challenges of tomorrow. A more appropriate lesson might be found in the Battle of Midway.

As the sun rose on June 4, 1942, the Imperial Navy of Japan was the most powerful navy ever to sail. By sunset, its eventual defeat was inevitable. Japan in 1942 possessed six world-class aircraft carriers and the finest naval aviators. Four carriers were lost on that day.

Lacking a robust industrial base, Japan would produce only seven additional fleet carriers by the end of the war (the U.S. more than 20). Rational or not, Japan started a war with a limited force structure and little ability to replenish loses.

Fast-forward to 2012. In a world of iPads, it is incredible, but the forces that will carry out the AirSea Battle construct reflect decisions made decades ago. Tomorrow's U.S. Air Force will possess a nominal force of bombers and a handful of sophisticated F-22s and F-35s. While highly capable, these fifth-generation fighters lack the range and payload necessary for conflicts in Asia. Friendly bases are few.

The airfields close enough for effective sortie generation rates with fifth-gen fighters will likewise be within range of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles. This environment requires hardened facilities and a robust missile-defense system. The former do not exist and the latter only in limited numbers.

While U.S. naval forces will benefit from their mobility, they too will face a Chinese anti-access threat projected to acquire and target surface combatants. With a deck of F/A-18s and F-35s, our carriers will be as range-challenged as our land-based fighters. Getting the carrier to the fight will require expensive escorts to defend against missile attacks. Combat operations would quickly become problematic once the defensive armaments are depleted.

Complicating this bleak outlook is the acquisition death spiral of increased cost/reduced numbers. As weapon systems progress through the acquisition cycle, they invariably fall behind schedule from unforeseen production issues. This drives up the cost, reducing the number of systems that can be purchased. The spiral continues with the war fighter receiving fewer platforms, later than needed, and costing significantly more than planned.

These two flaws could leave the U.S. in the same position that Japan found itself in 1943, weakened and unable to reconstitute a viable force. A small fighter force will generate few effective sorties (this assumes sufficient aerial tankers. Fighters in Asia are static displays without tankers). The loss of a Nimitz-class carrier would rival Pearl Harbor in loss of life and drive our surface naval forces out of harm's way. Like Imperial Japan, a Midway debacle would cripple U.S. power projection. And like Japan of 1943, America of 2012 cannot quickly reconstitute our current weapon systems.

With senior leaders stating there are no alternatives to weapon systems currently in development, it's apparent their predecessors organized a Pickett's Charge decades ago and left the charge to them. Resolving this mismatch between force structure and strategy will require a proper focus on the challenges of combat operations in the Pacific.

Specifically, in the short term:

■ Expand procurement of standoff missiles, such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range.

■ Regain our superiority in electronic warfare that was lost in our infatuation with stealth.

■ Purchase low-end attack aircraft and remotely piloted vehicles for noncontested environments.

■ Limit the F-35 buy to 200 to 400 aircraft.

For the long term:

■ Develop manned/unmanned long-range penetrating precision strike platforms (both land- and carrier-based).

■ Research and develop 21st century battleships capable of firing ballistic and cruise missiles from long range.

On June 3, 1942, the Imperial Navy of Japan was the uncontested master of the Pacific. On the following day, American ingenuity, guts and a degree of luck made Japan's eventual defeat inevitable. The future naval and air forces of the U.S. could face a similar tragedy, one in which the finest air and naval forces are rendered incapable of effective combat operations due to a 20-year process where we purchased what we wanted instead of what we needed.

Perhaps the most important contribution from an honest assessment of the AirSea Battle construct will be to own up to this unfortunate fact.

Chris Choate is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel now performing operational test and evaluation work with the service as a civilian employee. These views reflect those of the author and not the Air Force, Defense Department or U.S. government.

Cold War Treaty Puts U.S. in Corner Over China

The Cold War's most successful arms control agreement is imperiling U.S. forces and increasing the probability of a conflict in Asia.

The U.S.-Soviet Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty contributed to stability in Europe during the Cold War's final years by eliminating both nuclear and conventionally armed ground-launched cruise and ballistic missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Now, however, the treaty is preventing the U.S. and Russia from responding to a growing threat from China, which has been expanding its missile force at an unparalleled rate. China now has at least hundreds of ground-launched intermediate-range missiles. By comparison, Russia and the U.S. have none.

The last time Americans worried about a "missile gap" - a phrase consigned to history along with the Soviet Union - Gerald Ford was U.S. president, Berlin was a divided city and Taiwan was a U.S. treaty ally. With the Cold War's end and the emergence of a unipolar era, Americans, it was supposed, no longer needed to worry about comparing numbers of tanks, bombers and missiles.

But while Washington and Moscow were busy eliminating entire classes of missiles and with good reason, on the other side of the Eurasian land mass Beijing was investing in missile technology. Today, missiles play a central role in Chinese military strategy. And so, 20 years after the Soviet Union's dissolution, the U.S. is once again facing a missile gap, and unlike the missile gaps of the Cold War, there is no question as to this one's existence.

Why does this matter? The U.S.-China missile gap (and the Sino-Russian one, as well) creates strategic instability in a way that the perceived Cold War missile gaps never did. With its ground-based missiles, China can target U.S. and allied bases in the Asia-Pacific as far away as Guam, including key U.S. facilities in South Korea and Japan.

With its new anti-ship ballistic missile, also ground-launched, the People's Liberation Army will likewise be able to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and other capital ships at sea.

Because the U.S. cannot field intermediate-range missiles, it could not respond in kind to a missile strike on regional assets. Instead, it would have two options. It could rely on tactical fighters to carry out retaliatory strikes. Or, it could rely on longer-range options such as bombers or prompt global strike munitions (basically, conventionally armed intercontinental-range missiles).

Given Russia's lack of intermediate-range missiles, it would have similar options in responding to a Chinese missile attack.

The first option is highly escalatory because it involves an infringement of Chinese territorial integrity by a presumably large fighter force. It puts a higher number of American lives at risk and would engage a wider array of Chinese forces than a simpler tit-for-tat retaliatory missile strike. And reliance on tactical aircraft to respond to Chinese missile strikes could be problematic because those strikes might well have rendered U.S. airbases and aircraft carriers unusable, or worse.

Option two is potentially even more escalatory. Bombers and long-range missiles, after all, look an awful lot like nuclear delivery vehicles. China might very well be incapable of determining with what an incoming bomber or missile was armed. It is an open question whether Beijing would wait to find out before deciding how to respond.

Fortunately, the solution to this conundrum is quite clear. First, Washington and Moscow should invite Beijing (as well as other Asian states) to accede to the INF Treaty, or some updated version of it. If the Chinese decline the invitation, Russia and the U.S. should agree to abrogate the treaty while also agreeing to keep Europe free of those weapons, where a missile buildup would needlessly destabilize a largely stable region.

The U.S. military, and the Russian military if it desires, should then begin a spirited buildup of its own ground-based intermediate-range missile force in Asia.

Although counterintuitive, this would contribute to strategic stability. By developing more options for proportional responses to a Chinese military strike, the U.S. military would make escalation management an easier task, thus making vertical escalation much less likely. Such a move would also give Beijing incentive to sign up to a new INF treaty, as the value of its own missiles would be greatly diminished by a balanced U.S. missile force.

If other Asian states begin fielding theater-range ballistic missiles in large numbers as well - a likely scenario given their affordability and obvious merits - the need for a regionwide INF treaty would become apparent even to the Chinese.

But unless and until the U.S. narrows its missile gap with China, stability in Asia will continue to erode.

Michael Mazza is senior research associate, Foreign & Defense Policy Studies, at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

U.S. Ship Rescues Six More Iranians: Pentagon

WASHINGTON - A U.S. ship rescued six Iranian mariners in the Gulf after their boat broke down Jan. 10, the Pentagon said, in the latest such gesture despite soaring tensions between Washington and Tehran.

The Iranian crew used flares to seek help from the passing U.S. ship after flooding in the engine room left their dhow unseaworthy before sunrise some 50 nautical miles southeast of the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, U.S. officials said.

The Coast Guard cutter, the Monomoy, gave the Iranians water, blankets and meals made in accordance with Islamic law and provided medical care for one of the mariners who had suffered non-serious injuries, officials said.

A U.S. military statement said that Hakim Hamid-Awi, the owner of the Iranian dhow named the Ya-Hassan, was thankful.

"Without your help, we were dead. Thank you for all that you did for us," the U.S. statement quoted him as saying.

In the afternoon, U.S. forces transferred the six mariners on inflatable boats to an Iranian Coast Guard vessel, the Naji 7, the statement said. The captain of the Naji 7 also offered his regards to his U.S. counterparts and "thanks us for our cooperation," according to the U.S. statement.

The United States says that its forces routinely rescue sailors in distress regardless of nationality but officials have been eager to highlight efforts to assist Iranians amid Tehran's threats to close the crucial Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, the U.S. Navy rescued 13 Iranians held by pirates. Iran welcomed the gesture, even though it earlier had warned the ships to stay away.

That rescue was carried out by one of several warships escorting the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, which the Iranian military had warned to stay out of Gulf waters or face the "full force" or Tehran's navy.

The Coast Guard cutter the Monomoy, which carried out the latest rescue, is in the Gulf to assist maritime security, according to the Pentagon.

Iran's threat - which analysts say it may not be able to carry out - came as the United States expanded sanctions against the Islamic regime and the European Union considers a total ban on oil exports from Tehran.

Western powers have been seeking to increase pressure on Iran due to fears it is developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its uranium enrichment is solely for peaceful purposes.

The Missile Defense Answer to Iran

As the past three years have shown, President Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush, don't often see eye-to-eye on foreign policy. On at least one issue, however, the two appear to be in full agreement. Both have stated clearly and repeatedly that the radical, revolutionary regime that rules Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

And yet, neither the current president nor the previous one made serious headway on this most serious of national security challenges.

The time to do so is running out. As the most recent International Atomic Energy Agency report makes painfully clear, Iran is perilously close to crossing the nuclear threshold, and its intentions are anything but peaceful. The U.S. desperately needs a strategy to keep the fingers of Iran's ayatollahs off the nuclear trigger. For a nuclear-armed Iran - oil-rich, bellicose and ambitious - would change the 21st century in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Those who don't believe we can stop Iran from crossing the nuclear Rubicon, as well as those who minimize the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran, have taken to talking about "containment." But the clerical regime that rules Tehran will not be as easy to keep in a box as was the Soviet Union.

The leaders of the Soviet empire may have been evil, but they were not irrational. As a result, they chose to abide by the "balance of terror" that emerged over time with the U.S., backing away from thermonuclear confrontation even as they competed with America for primacy in the political theaters of Latin America, Africa and beyond.

Whether Iran will be willing to honor such a bargain is very much an open question. At least one segment of the Iranian leadership ascribes to a radical revisionist (even apocalyptic) world-view, one which requires and embraces confrontation with the West.

And while Iran's clerical army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, casts a growing shadow over politics within the Islamic Republic, recent provocations, such as the botched attempt to assassinate Saudi Arabia's envoy to the U.S. in Washington, suggest the Guards themselves are anything but risk averse.

All of this implies that we will be forced to rely on more than deterrence and the threat of mutually assured destruction to contain Iran. We also will need to make it as difficult as possible for the Iranians to use nuclear weapons, or even to credibly threaten to do so.

This can only be achieved by developing, as an integral component of a containment regime, a comprehensive missile defense system composed of space-based, sea-based and land-based defenses. Such a system would make it doubtful, if not impossible, for Iran to successfully fire a missile against the American homeland, American troops abroad or America's allies and be confident that the weapon would reach its intended victims.

Fortunately, the U.S. has the ability to defend against this threat. Since at least the early 1990s, America has possessed the technological know-how to erect a comprehensive national defense against enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. But for just as long, we have lacked the political will to do so.

Today, the state of affairs is much the same. The four-phase missile defense plan unveiled by the White House in September 2009 has a good deal to commend it, including major investments in sea-based defenses and the protection of allies abroad.

But it also suffers from potentially fatal deficiencies, chief among them the fact that it mortgages defense of the U.S. homeland until 2016 or later, when Obama will no longer be in office, even if he wins re-election next November. By doing so, it leaves the U.S. a provocatively weak and inviting target to adversaries who seek to do us harm, Iran chief among them.

Policymakers in Washington are hotly debating what, exactly, should be done to thwart the Islamic Republic and its stubborn quest for a nuclear capability. As they do, they should focus on missile defense as part of the logical answer. Anyone who seriously favors containment must also seriously favor comprehensive missile defense as a way of ensuring that Tehran's opportunities for aggression are limited. But others should favor this course of action as well.

Of course, it would be best to stop Iran's drive for nuclear weapons or to see the current regime replaced by one less bellicose. And it would be good to slow Iran's drive to nuclear weapons for as long as possible. But should all else fail, contingency plans must be in place to better protect Americans from the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism, which is now on the verge of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapons. America has the means to defend itself from Iranian nuclear missiles; it just needs to make such a plan a reality.

Ilan Berman is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council. Clifford May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Both are members of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense.

China State Media Cautious on New U.S. Defense Plan

BEIJING - China's official Xinhua news agency said Jan. 6 it welcomed a bigger U.S. presence in Asia, but only if it helped promote peace in the region, after President Barack Obama unveiled a new military strategy.

The plan calls for the U.S. military to strengthen its presence in Asia and prepare for possible challenges from countries such as China, while downplaying future huge counter-insurgency campaigns such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beijing has given no official response to the review, but Xinhua said Jan. 6 that the United States was welcome to make "more contribution to peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region", while urging it against "warmongering".

"The U.S. role, if fulfilled with a positive attitude and free from a Cold War-style zero-sum mentality, will not only be conducive to regional stability and prosperity, but be good for China," it said in a comment piece.

"However, while boosting its military presence in the Asia Pacific, the United States should abstain from flexing its muscles," it added. "If the United States indiscreetly applies militarism in the region, it will be like a bull in a china shop, and endanger peace instead of enhancing regional stability."

The United States is increasingly focusing its attention on the Asia-Pacific region, where commanders worry about China's growing military power.

The People's Liberation Army is the world's largest active military, and is extremely secretive about its defense programs, which benefit from a huge and expanding military budget.

In November, Obama went on a week-long tour of the Pacific in a bid to enhance the role of the United States in the region, positioning Marines in northern Australia and pushing for a trans-Pacific trade pact.

Shortly afterwards, China announced it would conduct routine naval exercises in the Pacific Ocean, in what some saw as a symbolic move aimed at the United States. Meanwhile, the Global Times - an official, nationalistic daily newspaper - accused the United States of trying to contain China and called on Beijing to "strengthen its long-range strike abilities and put more deterrence on the U.S."

"The U.S. must realize that it cannot stop the rise of China and that being friendly to China is in its utmost interests," it said in en editorial.

The new U.S. strategy unveiled Jan. 5 calls for a leaner military, and also focuses on preventing Iran from securing nuclear weapons.