The White House’s newly unveiled Golden Dome initiative is set to reshape U.S. missile defense policy, focusing on intercepting long-range and hypersonic missiles aimed at the country.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump announced an initial $25 billion investment, part of a larger $175 billion funding plan aimed at completing the Golden Dome project by the end of his term.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth highlighted that Golden Dome will employ a layered defense strategy, integrating both existing and forthcoming technologies, and will feature an open architecture that invites contributions from multiple companies.
This announcement comes amidst ongoing discussions surrounding the feasibility of Golden Dome, particularly in relation to the missile capabilities of adversaries like China, Russia, and North Korea.
Proponents of the initiative argue that it aims to bolster homeland and extended deterrence as the U.S. contends with a challenging two-peer and near-peer threat landscape.
Despite its ambitious goals, the potential implications of Golden Dome for U.S. diplomatic partnerships worldwide have received comparatively less scrutiny.
Traditionally, U.S. missile defense efforts have involved collaboration with regional allies, influencing the strategic framework for defense programs across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
An executive order signed by Trump earlier in the year underscored the initiative’s international dimension, emphasizing the necessity for enhanced bilateral and multilateral cooperation in missile defense technology and operations.
During his announcement, Trump mentioned Canada as a probable initial partner for the Golden Dome initiative, highlighting the administration’s intent to engage allies in this critical defense undertaking.
While the particulars of the Golden Dome program remain somewhat ambiguous, it is suggested that the Trump administration should seek to reinvigorate missile defense dialogues with partners across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
Such discussions would not only align with U.S. strategic aims but would also encompass political and industrial dimensions, enhancing cooperation in missile defense.
However, successful collaboration will necessitate navigating several technical military challenges and addressing the unique sensitivities of different regional partners.
In particular, care must be taken to ensure that the Golden Dome initiative does not overstate its role in reaffirming the United States’ commitment to extended deterrence for its allies.
The increasing investment in missile defense can be viewed as a means to reassure U.S. allies concerned about adversarial threats from Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, while also reducing the necessity for large-scale troop deployments abroad.
This sentiment is reminiscent of the Obama administration’s assurances to NATO allies, where missile defense deployments were portrayed as compensation for decreased U.S. military presence in Europe.
Significantly, the origins of Poland’s Aegis Ashore System point back to the decisions made during the Obama administration, reflecting the long-standing link between missile defense initiatives and troop deployment strategies.
With the Trump administration emphasizing a reduced military footprint globally, reinforcing U.S. missile defense capacities could serve as a strategic tool to maintain influence without increasing troop commitments.
The Golden Dome initiative aims to allocate resources towards developing space-based missile defense systems, which could fundamentally alter the prevailing market for missile defense technologies predominantly characterized by ground and naval-based systems.
Currently, no allies within Europe, the Middle East, or Asia possess a credible space industry capable of engaging with this new domain, thus indicating that collaboration on Golden Dome may result in reliance on U.S. technology and expanded opportunities for co-production among allies.
At present, only Japan is actively involved in co-producing U.S. missile defense systems, primarily through surface-to-air SM-3 and PAC-3 missiles.
Japan recently proposed a co-production agreement for the new SM-6 long-range ship-to-air missiles, while Israel may seek similar arrangements due to its existing collaboration on missile defense technologies with the U.S.
However, creating a broader framework for allied missile defense production will require overcoming military and diplomatic challenges unique to each partner nation.
U.S. allies in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific each face distinct missile threats that necessitate tailored responses to their security needs.
While Golden Dome is designed to address threats from global adversaries launching intercontinental ballistic missiles, European partners are increasingly concerned with shorter-range missile threats and drone assaults, as demonstrated by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
European nations have initiated steps to address these capability gaps and protect against a range of aerial threats, including cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones.
In the Gulf region, U.S. partners such as Israel and various Gulf states are mainly focused on threats posed by Iran and its associated proxy forces, necessitating an adaptable missile defense strategy.
The credibility of U.S. missile defense as a reassurance mechanism varies depending on the intensity of each partner’s specific threat, particularly if the U.S. were to significantly reduce its military presence in regions like South Korea.
With a strategic pivot toward the Indo-Pacific, European and Gulf states might fear being sidelined in new missile defense frameworks underscored by the Golden Dome initiative.
The project also exposes disparities between regional security frameworks in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, highlighting challenges in achieving cohesive missile defense strategies outside of NATO.
Historically, the U.S. has successfully established a regional missile defense framework in Europe, yet similar integrated approaches in Asia and the Middle East remain elusive due to a lack of trust and the desire for national sovereignty among partners.
To advance missile defense cooperation in these regions, the U.S. must build on existing partnerships while exploring new collaborative formats.
The recent Camp David Summit opened the door to trilateral security cooperation among the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, focusing on information-sharing and cooperation regarding North Korean missile threats.
Additionally, including missile defense in the discussions of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or in partnership frameworks between NATO and its Asian partners could further strengthen collaboration.
However, accommodating the differing industrial interests of allies presents a significant obstacle, as many countries maintain their own domestic defense industries, balacing the procurement of U.S. systems with the protection of their industrial bases.
For example, while South Korea and Japan continue to procure U.S. systems, they also carefully safeguard their missile defense industries, which have developed their own capabilities.
In Europe, initiatives like the Sky Shield program emphasize collaboration yet face challenges due to desires for strategic autonomy and national prerogatives.
Despite these complexities, U.S.-European relations surrounding missile defense are likely to evolve, especially as European nations increasingly seek to establish their own independent frameworks.
This evolving landscape requires clear communication regarding collaborative interests, particularly in developing indigenous capabilities, including in the burgeoning space domain.
While differences in strategic culture and political priorities among U.S. partners are inevitable, identifying common ground will be crucial for successful collaboration.
The U.S.-Israel model of missile defense cooperation serves as a potential guide, illustrating that despite divergent threat assessments and objectives, productive collaboration can yield beneficial outcomes for both parties.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of renewed missile defense discussions will hinge upon how well the Golden Dome initiative aligns with the diverse security interests of U.S. partners.
Though missile defense alone cannot deliver the full scope of deterrence needed, Golden Dome has the potential to play an influential, complementary role amidst increasingly dire nuclear and missile threats facing allied nations today.
image source from：https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/golden-dome-creates-a-new-missile-defense-bargain-with-us-partners/
