When Barack Obama was running for the White House, he posed as a man with a cool head in a crisis who would display calm resolve in the face of any thuggery from the world's rogue states. The candidate described by his aides as "no drama Obama" would have despised the label of a gambler. Yet his decision to abandon plans for a missile defence shield in central Europe amounts to nothing less than a colossal gamble – and one that history may yet condemn as irresponsible and reckless.Be in no doubt about the stakes: the defensive system that Mr Obama has chosen to scrap was the West's ultimate insurance policy against a nuclear-armed Iran. If all our efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal were to fail, this anti-missile shield would have provided a measure of assurance.
All that has gone by the board. Mr Obama offered a plea in mitigation, promising that America would still deploy sophisticated defences against missile attack, probably based at sea and designed to counter the short- and medium-range weapons that Iran already possesses. Any long-range variants, the President seemed to claim, amounted to insignificant gleams in the eyes of Tehran's ruthless rulers and will take many years for Iran to perfect.
This case is wholly specious: it places too much reliance on intelligence assessments which we know, from bitter experience, have a mixed record – at best – when it comes to forecasting the technical progress of weapons programmes in hostile states. What if Iran deploys long-range missiles sooner than America now predicts – and the only defences available are designed to deal with short- and medium-range weapons? Highly sophisticated anti-missile systems cannot be rustled up in a hurry.
A prudent defence policy guards against every realistic menace, not a selection of threats. Mr Obama is behaving like an eccentric homeowner who refuses to lock his front door, but points out that a gleaming smoke detector will protect against fire. Just as the answer is to install the smoke alarm and use a latchkey, so a defensive shield should be able to counter any kind of missile, not merely those your potential adversary presently deploys.
Mr Obama's decision to gamble with Europe's security – for this is what it means – can only be defended if he now secures a real and incontestable gain. That hinges on Russia. The Kremlin, which bitterly opposed the missile-defence scheme, has had its way. In the next few weeks, we will all learn the answer to the burning question: what will Russia give in return? There is no doubt about what Mr Obama wants. Iran's nuclear programme continues apace and the underground centrifuges in Natanz are still enriching uranium in brazen defiance of five United Nations resolutions. Only yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would "never" halt this highly sensitive process, which could be used to produce nuclear weapons.
We are nearing the endgame of diplomacy towards Iran. On October 1, Tehran's chief negotiator will meet an American official at a gathering of the world's leading powers. If those negotiations fail – and no one is predicting success – Mr Obama will place a new sanctions resolution before the Security Council. This time, America will probably seek to target Iran's oil and gas industries, perhaps by imposing a UN ban on any investment in this vital sector.
Will Russia allow such a resolution to pass – or will Moscow follow its usual practice and ally with China to shield Iran? If the Kremlin vetoes or dilutes a sanctions resolution, this will make a peaceful resolution of the confrontation with Iran far less likely, and shorten the odds on a war in the Middle East next year. It will also show that Mr Obama's monumental gamble has failed. The President has effectively placed the fate of a vital element of his foreign policy in the hands of the Kremlin. That is a sorry pass for a superpower to reach.