The Pentagon will request $9.16 billion for missile defense programs for the 2014 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, about $550 million less than this year’s $9.71 billion, according to internal budget figures obtained by Bloomberg News.

The missile defense proposal scheduled to be released April 10 is part of a $526.6 billion defense budget President Barack Obama will propose, according to government officials familiar with the budget plan who asked not to be named discussing it in advance.

The request is subject to congressional scrutiny and could be increased in areas lawmakers decide to give greater emphasis, such as the ground-based system of missile interceptors based in Alaska and California to protect the U.S. Last year, House members added money to start construction of a site on the East Coast. The Senate removed the funds, asking the Pentagon to conduct an environmental impact study instead.

Chairman of the House Armed Services missile defense panel Mike Rogers (R., Ala.) expressed concern in a statement to Bloomberg over the proposed cuts, given ongoing issues in North Korea and other developments in nuclear technology.

The U.S. suffers from “a large capability gap to defend the United States from Iran,” the 19 lawmakers wrote to Hagel earlier this week. They demanded President Barack Obama allocate “no less” than $250 million so that 20 new missile interceptors could be deployed on the East Coast.

The Defense Department announced earlier this month that it would bolster separate missile defense capabilities on the West Coast in order to combat the threat from North Korea, which has successfully tested missiles that could target the United States.

The lawmakers, among them HASC chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), argued that the East Coast remains vulnerable to an Iranian attack.

Iran is on pace to test a new intercontinental ballistic missile later this year, the lawmakers noted. Yet the U.S. is not prepared to confront such weapons.

The “administration admitted it was wrong about the pace of the North Korea threat” in announcing that the Defense Department would add 14 more interceptors to a site in Alaska, the lawmakers said in a joint press release.

Defenses should be further strengthened given this miscalculation, they argued.

“The administration’s announcement to terminate the SM-3 block IIB [interceptors], in addition to sending another shockwave through our European alliances, also creates a large gap in the defense of the United States from the Iranian missile threat,” the lawmakers stated.

Republicans remain “concerned the administration, which consistently understated the North Korea threat, as acknowledged by Friday’s reversal, is now doing the same thing in terms of the Iranian threat,” the statement said.

Threats that once seemed hypothetical are becoming a reality, experts warned.

“This potential threat [of a missile strike] is becoming reality, as underscored by North Korea’s successful long-range missile test in December 2012 and claim to have successfully detonated a ‘miniaturized’ nuclear device in February merits the administration’s response,” Chris Griffin, executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, wrote in a recent op-ed.

“Likewise, of course, for Iran’s ongoing nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which Alaska-based interceptors are not optimally located to hit,” Griffin noted. “Whether or not the tide of war is receding, the ballistic missile threat to the homeland is growing.”

“Unless the administration now goes forward with a third [defense system] site on the U.S. east coast, the homeland will be more vulnerable as a result of these cancellations,” Griffin wrote.

The Pentagon claimed that the decision has nothing to do Russia, but Hagel has long advocated reducing missile defense capabilities in Europe as a means to increase cooperation with Russia and it has been reported that the Obama administration is attempting a second reset with Russia.

Rep. Mike Turner (R., Ohio) said Friday’s announcement vindicated his claim of a secret agreement between President Barack Obama and Russian leaders. Turner’s claim refers to a 2012 incident in which Obama was caught on microphone saying to then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that “after my election I have more flexibility” concerning missile defense. Turner attacked the secret agreement, telling Foreign Policy:

We watched the president state to Medvedev that he would have greater flexibility after the election. Putin later announced the terms of the agreement. You’d have to conclude that there was a deal. … The president clearly has abandoned the shield that the Russians opposed and we’re left with the U.S. having greater exposure to North Korea and Iran without any Benefit.

A long proponent of closer U.S.-Russian relations, Hagel first spoke out about the need to base missile defense policy around Russian concerns as a senator in 2000 when he endorsed the decision by the Clinton administration not to deploy a limited national missile defense system.

He said:

[Missile defense] cannot develop in a vacuum … [it] must move forward on a four parallel tracks—technology, Congress, our allies, and the Russians.

Hagel built on his previous arguments against missile defense in his book, America: Our Next Chapter, claiming that the U.S. was provoking Russia with its “dubious” missile defense development:

But I question if provoking Russia with a missile defense system position on its borders … that has dubious utility to American security, will do anything but …  further erode our relationship.

Heading the Commission On U.S. Policy Toward Russia, Hagel illustrated how far the U.S. should go in cooperating with Russia on missile defense.

The commission said in a 2009 report that an integrated missile defense system between the U.S. and Russia was the “most desirable” outcome. According to the report:

Building a joint system that could include Russian facilities and equipment is most desirable. … At a minimum, the United States must seriously address Moscow’s concerns that the system could be directed against Russia.

Hagel’s willingness to use missile defense programs as a bargaining chip with Russia appears to coincide with Obama’s objective of “resetting” U.S.-Russian relations.

Many saw Obama’s decision not to deploy parts of the missile defense system to the Czech Republic and Poland as components of that “reset.”

According to the New York Times, within the White House the first “reset” is seen as a failure, requiring a second “reset” in Obama’s second term.

The report by the National Research Council also calls for revamping the current program to focus on building more capable long-range interceptors and deploying them in an additional base on the East Coast.

“The current homeland defense plan, which consists of GMD [Ground-based Mid-Course Defense] augmented by early intercept capabilities from Europe, is very expensive and has limited effectiveness,” the report said.

The report also stated that missile defenses aimed at hitting enemy missiles shortly after launch—a key feature of the administration’s current so-called phased adaptive approach for U.S. and NATO missile defenses in Europe—is too difficult and should be scrapped.

Instead, the panel of experts recommends a new “evolved” GMD system based on a combination of long-range interceptors, which can hit missiles during the mid-course of their flight, and enhanced terminal defenses, which will catch any missiles that leak through the other defenses.

A key House Republican said the report highlights the administration’s poor handling of missile defenses and the need to do more to defend the United States from long-range missile attack.

“As we have seen in report after report, the president’s European phased adaptive approach was ill-conceived and prematurely rolled out by a president more focused on Russia’s concerns than defense of the United States,” said Rep. Mike Turner (R., Ohio), chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.

The administration in 2009 cancelled plans by the George W. Bush administration to build a long-range interceptor site in Poland as part of its efforts to develop closer ties to Russia. Moscow, however, has rejected all efforts to reach an agreement on missile defense with the United States.

“The president has invested years and billions of dollars in this system, which leaves us at a strategic disadvantage in countering what is the ultimate goal of nations like Iran and North Korea—missiles that could carry weapons of mass destruction to threaten the American people.”

Turner said the report validates a section of the fiscal 2013 Defense Authorization Act that calls for building the third East Coast interceptor site to augment bases in Alaska and California.

A blue-ribbon committee of experts with over 50 years of experience in missile defense conducted the study. L. David Montague, former head of Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., headed the committee.

“For too long, the U.S. has been committed to expensive missile defense strategies without sufficient consideration of the costs and real utility,” Montague said in a statement.

Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner said the agency has scrapped two boost-phase intercept programs that were in development, the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptors.

As for the current GMD, Lehner said the Alaska and California system “is effective against the type of long-range missile threat we may face from North Korea and Iran, and there are no plans to augment or replace the existing GMD technology with a new interceptor missile or build any new domestic missile defense sites.”

On the administration’s phased missile defense, the report urged the first three phases to be clearly distinct from the fourth phase, which it said, “adds little or nothing to the defense of Europe and is aimed primarily at adding an early shot opportunity to enhance the defense of the United States.

Phase 1, set for completion by 2011, included deploying Aegis ships with SM-3 interceptors that will protect parts of southern Europe from intermediate-range missiles. Phase 2 is slated to be done by 2015, and will add SM-3 Block IB interceptors, currently in development, on ships and in land-based silos. The Phase 3 plan calls for a more advanced SM-3 Block 1B to be deployed by 2018.

“Phase 4 is projected to be completed by 2020 and assumes the deployment of an even more advanced SM-3 with better performance,” the report said. “It is projected to have an ICBM capability and a kill capability for missiles in the ascent phase, and it will further augment the GMD system for the defense of the United States.”

The Pentagon, in a report to Congress made public in July, said Iran could have the technical expertise to flight test its first intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015—five years before the Pentagon’s plan to have interceptors that could knock it down.

Lehner, the MDA spokesman, said the Phase 4 plan “will provide an effective forward-based defense of the U.S. homeland from a future long-range missile threat from Iran, and will complement the deployed GMD system in Alaska and California for effective homeland defense.”

The current U.S. GMD system includes about 30 ground-based interceptors (GBIs), located at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, along with a Missile Defense Integrated Operations Center at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, and a GMD Communication Network.

In one of the panel’s major recommendations, the report said the Pentagon should develop a new evolutionary approach that would “provide adequate coverage for defense of the U.S. homeland against likely developments in North Korea and Iran over the next decade or two at an affordable and efficient 20-yr life-cycle cost.”

“The evolutionary approach would employ smaller, lower cost, faster burning, two-stage interceptors,” the report said.

On missile threats, the report said an ICBM launched from central Iran would reach the United States in 40 minutes, and similar flight durations would apply to threats from North Korea.

The report said long-range missiles, both liquid and solid fueled, can fly faster than shorter-range missile defenses fired from areas nearby the launch sites.

Better missile defenses for the homeland “will take time, money, and careful testing, but unless this is done, the system will not be able to work against any but the most primitive attacks,” the report said, noting that currently “missile defense is at a critical point.”

The report, “Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives,” was required under congressional legislation.

The National Academies of Sciences and the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency commissioned the report.

Statements by a Russian official and a Moscow news report published Wednesday revealed that the Russian government is having second thoughts about its 2010 decision to cancel a sale of S-300s to Iran.

Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow and a member of the advisory board of the Russian defense ministry, was quoted July 4 as saying the decision not to sell S-300s to Iran “is a political decision as this [missile] system is not affected by international sanctions.”

“If the Syrian regime falls without Russia’s consent and as a result of interference by Westerners, or if Moscow is not satisfied with the process of a peaceful transfer of power to an interim government, then it is possible that Moscow might react by selling the S-300 missiles to Iran,” Pukhov said.

Pukhov said the fall of the Bashar Assad regime in Syria would increase the chances of a Western attack on Iran, and thus selling S-300s would be a timely decision. The Iranian news outlet Asre Iran reported the comments.

The newspaper Kommersant reported Wednesday that a threat by Iran to sue Moscow for $4 billion for canceling the S-300 sale could reverse the decision.

Russian government leaders fear the Court of Arbitration in Geneva will rule in Iran’s favor. As a result, “experts do not rule out the Russian Federation beginning to deliver the S-300 to Iran,” the report said, quoting a Russian government source.

Iran sued the Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport for $4 billion over the canceled sale.

A Russian reversal on the S-300s would be a major setback for the Obama administration, which has touted the arms sale cancellation by Moscow as a major policy achievement.

Deputy Secretary of State William Burns on June 21 told the Senate Finance Committee, which on Wednesday approved legislation that would grant permanent normal trade status to Russia, that “by working together with Russia over the last three and a half years, we have shown that we can achieve tangible results that matter to our own self-interest and national security.”

Burns mentioned the New START arms treaty and noted Russia “voluntarily cancelled the sale of a sophisticated air defense system to Iran, a contract worth over a billion dollars.”

Additionally, in written answers to questions posed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Clinton was asked how long Moscow would comply with U.N. sanctions and freeze S-300 sales to Iran.

“We appreciate the restraint that Russia has implemented over the course of several years in not transferring the S-300 to Iran,” Clinton stated on June 17, 2010. “We hope that Russia’s restraint will serve to encourage other potential arms suppliers to adopt a rigorous approach to implementing 1929’s provisions on conventional arms transfers.”

Senate aides said new concerns over Russian S-300 transfers come as the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment to the Russian trade legislation that would have delayed granting PNTR status for Russia until the president certified that Moscow is not supplying arms to the regime of Syrian leader Bashar Assad.

The resolution, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), was defeated after Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, withdrew his support for the measure, Senate aides said.

During debate on the Cornyn Syria amendment, Kerry indicated that he would not oppose past arms deals between Russia and Syria to go through as long as no new arms contracts were signed.

Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth said the amendment was defeated 16 to 8. “Sen. Kerry, along with others, spoke out against it on the grounds that it was counterproductive to achieving its stated goal.”

A Senate aide said: “On the same day that Moscow is working hard to reverse its supposed suspension of the S-300 sales to Tehran, John Kerry condoned Russian arms sales to Syria.  How low can you go?”

The Cornyn amendment was based on a Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution that has been held up by Kerry since June 14. It has 13 cosponsors, including seven Republicans and six Democrats.

Russian opposition to U.S. and NATO missile defense deployments in Europe are expected to be the major topic of discussion when the chief of the Russian general staff meets Dempsey, according to U.S. officials close to the planned meeting.

Dempsey is expected to open the talks with Gen. Nikolai Makarov by thanking the Russians for agreeing last month to open a NATO supply base at the Volga River city of Ulyanovsk. The air base will serve as a hub for cargo and troop transits to and from Afghanistan.

Makarov was given an honor cordon at the Pentagon Thursday morning prior to his meeting with Dempsey.

Dempsey also is expected to raise the U.S. military’s hope to conduct theater-level cooperative missile defense exercises with the Russians.

Makarov for his part will again outline Russian plans to counter the administration’s so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach missile defense system.

Makarov is also expected to make clear that the Russians are not ready to reach any agreements with the United States on missile defenses.

The U.S. system calls for deployments of U.S. Aegis missile defense ships in waters around Europe as well as future ground-based deployments of advanced SM-3 missile defense interceptors currently deployed on ships.

Makarov is expected to assert that the Russian government will not deal with the United States on missile defenses until after the U.S. presidential elections in November, according to the officials.

That Russian position follows President Obama’s open-microphone comments in March to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, when Obama was overheard promising the Russian leader that he would have “more flexibility” in missile defense negotiations in a second presidential term.

Those comments drew widespread criticism from Republicans who said the administration was planning to make further concessions to Moscow that could hamper U.S. national security.

The administration canceled plans to deploy long-range interceptors in Poland in favor of the less-capable defenses as a concession to Moscow.

Makarov is expected during his meeting with Dempsey to state that the Russians are continuing to develop responses to missile defenses as outlined in speeches by President Vladimir Putin and Medvedev.

Russian military forces have been expanding both nuclear and conventional forces in response to U.S. missile defenses.

Among the weapons being tested and developed are high-tech long-range missiles that can defeat strategic defenses. The Russians also have discussed pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which bans medium-range nuclear missiles.

Russia also has said it would deploy short-range nuclear-capable missiles closer to Europe in response to future U.S. missile defenses.

Joint Staff spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said Makarov will take part in a meeting of the Military Cooperation Working Group that is part of the Bilateral Presidential Commission.

In addition to missile defense and the Afghanistan supply route, “they are expected to discuss the Arab Spring, our rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific and they’ll discuss status of the sub-working groups and the annual Military Cooperation Work Plan,” Lapan said.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby told reporters on Tuesday, “We’re very pleased that Gen Makarov will be coming to—to have consultative meetings with Chairman Dempsey.”

“These meetings are routine and I think you can expect that the broad range of issues that we routinely talk about with our Russian counterparts will be brought up,” Kirby said. “And I would certainly expect that Syria will be among that list.”

There are news reports from Europe that Russian ships are sailing toward Syria carrying Russian marines and forces.

Putin said in Mexico in June that bridging differences with Washington on missile defense is difficult.

“I think that the missile defense problem will not be solved no matter if Obama is reelected or not,” Putin told reporters in Los Cabos. “The U.S. is moving along the path of creating its own missile defense system for many years. I can see nothing that can change its approach.”

Makarov surprised senior U.S. officials in May when he announced at a conference in Moscow that Russian military forces would conduct preemptive attacks on missile defense interceptor bases in Poland and other facilities in Europe during a future crisis.

“Taking into account a missile defense system’s destabilizing nature, that is, the creation of an illusion that a disarming strike can be launched with impunity, a decision on preemptive use of the attack weapons available will be made when the situation worsens,” Makarov said.

Russian military leaders had threatened to target the defenses, but Makarov’s comments were the first threatening preemptive attacks.

The comments were part of Moscow’s war of words over missile defenses. The Russian government, in talks with U.S. officials, has demanded legally binding restrictions on the deployment of U.S. and NATO missile defenses that the Pentagon says are aimed at countering long-range Iranian missile attacks and are not designed to counter Moscow’s ICBMs.

The Obama administration has said it will not give in to Moscow’s demand for restrictions on defenses. However, Obama’s candid comments about future flexibility have raised concerns among missile defense advocates about limits on the defense as part of the administration’s conciliatory reset policy.

Russian officials continue to insist that the United States is planning missile defenses in Europe that could be used to bolster offensive strategic nuclear forces in a future nuclear conflict with Russia.

The state-run Russian news outlet RIA Novosti reported July 10 that Makarov would visit the Untied States from July 10 to July 13. A Defense Ministry spokesman told the news agency that his talks will focus on missile defenses.

The report quoted Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov as saying earlier that Makarov would “make yet another attempt to explain [Russia’s] stance on missile defense at least at a chief of staff level.”

Rep. Michael Turner (R., Ohio) stated in a June 12 letter to senior Obama administration officials that he is also concerned Russia appears to be taking steps to abandon a 1980s treaty banning intermediate-range missiles.

“I am deeply concerned about Russia’s recent provocative tests of new ballistic missiles, as well as the apparent complete absence of response and engagement by the Obama administration,” Turner stated in a letter sent Tuesday to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

The tests are indicators that Russia appears to be following through with threats to deploy weapons capable of conducting preemptive attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Europe, said Turner, chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.

Additionally, Russian missile developments “are clear evidence by Russia of plans for its withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty,” he said.

The 1987 INF treaty between Moscow and Washington eliminated all nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 300 and 3,400 miles.

Russia last week conducted a test launch of a new strategic missile that was intended to send a political message to NATO regarding Moscow’s opposition to U.S. missile defenses.

The test and an early flight-test in May “appear to be, without ambiguity, demonstrations of new nuclear delivery systems,” he said.

Gen. Nikolai Makarov, currently chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, said in May that Russia planned to deploy short-range missiles that could attack planned U.S. and NATO missile defenses in Poland and Romania.

“Taking into account a missile-defense system’s destabilizing nature, that is, the creation of an illusion that a disarming strike can be launched with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive use of the attack weapons available will be made when the situation worsens,” Makarov said.

The statements were part of an ongoing Russian propaganda campaign to coerce the United States into abandoning missile defenses in Europe that Washington says are needed to counter Iran’s missiles and that Moscow believes are planned for use against Russian ICBMs.

Mark Schneider, strategic affairs specialist with the National Institute for Public Policy who was an Obama administration New START treaty negotiator, said the new missile was tested by Russia with unusual secrecy.

The May missile test was “the third new ICBM announced since the ratification of the New START treaty,” he said.

Schneider said in a letter to the subcommittee that the unusual secrecy surrounding the missile tests “raises concerns that Russian silence relates to a treaty compliance issue.”

“When a compliance issue is in play, Russia generally does not provide technical details about a new missile,” Schneider said, and noted that high-level Russian government statements since 2007 indicate Russia is considering withdrawing from the INF Treaty.

Schneider conducted an analysis of reports on Russian activity that “either violate or circumvent the INF Treaty.”

“The pattern of activities that are now being reported would completely eviscerate the INF Treaty’s impact on Russia while the U.S. continues to comply with the Treaty’s ‘zero option,’” he said.

The Obama administration appears uninterested in questioning the Russians on the treaty violations, and Schneider called on the subcommittee to conduct an investigation.

Turner, in his letter, said it appears the administration has made no formal response to the Russian missile tests and their impact on the INF treaty.

While President Obama, based on his Prague speech, is pushing for “zero” nuclear arms, Turner said, “According to all the available evidence, however, the Prague agenda has only reduced U.S. nuclear forces. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran seem uninterested by President Obama’s disarmament agenda.”

Turner posed questions to the three administration security leaders, including whether Russian missile tests violate the INF treaty,  whether Russia is building systems not limited by the START treaty that are capable of being deployed against the United States, and why the new systems are not limited by the 2010 treaty.

Also, Turner asked whether Russian missile developments will cause the administration to re-evaluate efforts to conclude a defense technology cooperation accord with Moscow.

Turner asked Clinton, Panetta, and Clapper about ongoing missile proliferation activities by Russia to Iran first reported by the Free Beacon.

He asked for details of the cooperation and whether it includes Russian support for Iranian space launcher development, which is useful for Tehran’s long-range strategic missile program.

“I’m sure you’ll agree that it is important for the United States to be clear-eyed about Russian intentions and plans related to its nuclear forces and cooperation with illicit, proliferating regimes such as Iran,” Turner said.

The unclassified assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was sent in April to Congress following a request from Capitol Hill to explain the current state of Moscow-Tehran missile trade. The new intelligence on the missile trade could trigger sanctions under the Iran, North Korea, and Syria sanctions law or limit U.S. government interaction with Moscow.

“We assess that individual entities have provided assistance to Iran’s ballistic missile programs,” the DNI statement by legislative director Kathleen Turner said.

The new assessment differs from an earlier intelligence statement supplied to Congress that was more categorical on the transfers and did not contain legalistic references included in an apparent effort to avoid linking the Russian government to recent missile-related transfers.

The assessment could affect a requested presidential waiver sought by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that is needed prior to the next U.S. payment to Russia for the International Space Station.

A State Department official said the Russia-Iran missile trade has not been raised in recent meetings between U.S. and Russian officials.

Current law requires the president to certify that it is Russia’s policy to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear and missile technology and systems.

“NASA wants another waiver to allow us to make payments to Moscow for the International Space Station, but the president cannot certify that Russia has a policy to prevent their own assistance to Iran’s missiles, to say nothing of the nuclear program, and what’s going on in Syria,” said a congressional aide close to the issue.

The waiver is required under the nonproliferation law before any payments can be made.

Additionally, the administration is pressing Congress to pass permanent normal trade relations legislation for Russia, raising further questions that the administration is ignoring Russian arms proliferation to Tehran.

“What message will all this send to Putin,” the aide said. “I think we know: The Obama administration reset cancer is now metastatic to all U.S. policy.”

The statement concludes that, while it is not official Russian policy to assist Iran’s missile programs, Moscow is incapable of implementing a policy to halt such exports or prevent state-owned arms manufacturers from assisting Iran, the aide said.

The assessment appears to be in line with President Obama’s conciliatory policies toward Russia. The president was overheard during a conversation with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in March as telling the Russians not to pressure him during the current election campaign. Obama promised “more flexibility” in stalled talks on missile defenses after his presumed reelection, according to the conversation that was recorded by television cameras.

According to the DNI, currently headed by James Clapper, the U.S. intelligence community “assesses that Moscow almost certainly is not pursuing an official policy of providing support to Iran’s ballistic missile program,” although it did not explain why, since all Russian weapons exports are under the control of the state-run arm exporter Rosoboronexport.

The assessment went on to state that Moscow has “taken steps to improve controls on ballistic missile technology and its record of export enforcement—though still mixed—has improved over the last decade.”

“Russian space entities have entered into agreements with Iran but Moscow almost certainly views commercial space-related ventures with Iran as consistent with its obligations under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).”

The MTCR is a loose-knit arms control accord that limits states that adhere to its provisions from exporting missiles with ranges greater than 300 kilometers and the capability of carrying warheads heavier than 500 kilograms.

The congressional aide said the DNI statement is related to the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act that is designed to punish arms proliferators that supply nuclear and missile goods to those states.

An initial 2005 version of the law outlined Russian support for Iran’s nuclear and strategic missile programs.

A CIA-drafted report to Congress made public earlier this year said Iran’s missile arsenal is “one of the largest in the Middle East” and includes an array of short- and medium-range missiles. Iran continues work on long-range missiles.

“Entities in China and Russia along with North Korea are among likely suppliers,” the report said, noting that Tehran remains “dependent on foreign suppliers for some key missile components.”

Classified cables made public by Wikileaks reveal extensive efforts by Iran to obtain missile technology from Russia, as well as other European and Asian states.

In one case in February 2009, the Russian firm Crystaltechno Ltd. worked to buy a German-origin, single-axis turntable for Iran’s defense industry-related Malek-Ashtar University of Technology. The machine can be used to test gyroscopes and micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) sensors used in missile guidance and navigation systems.

In 2008, U.S. sanctions were imposed on Rosoboronexport, the state arms exporter, for sales of TOR-M1 air defense missiles to Iran. Four Russian arms makers were sanctioned in 2007 for weapons transfers to Iran.

A December 2006 cable said Russian arms broker Aleksey Safonov transferred a shipment of Russian-origin VG-951 fiber optic and MG-4 dynamically tuned gyroscopes, A-16 accelerometers, and other guidance, navigation, and control equipment to the Iranian missile entity Fadjr Industries Group in 2005.

Meanwhile, a senior House Republican is calling on the president to explain efforts by the administration to reach an agreement with Moscow on missile defenses.

“There is still a great deal of concern about what you meant when you were overheard during a recent meeting in Seoul with Russia’s former President Dmitri Medvedev, that after this election, your ‘last election,’ you ‘would have greater flexibility’ to make a deal with Russia concerning U.S. missile defenses,” said Rep. Michael R. Turner, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, which oversees missile defense programs.

“What is it you and your administration are concerned the American people would object to in such a deal with Russia?” Turner asked. “Would it be limitations, unilateral or bilateral, with Russia on the speed, range, or geographical deployment of U.S. missile defense interceptors?”

Turner also asked the president in a May 23 letter to explain plans for up to an 80 percent cut in deployed U.S. nuclear warheads as part of the nearly completed Nuclear Posture Review implementation study.

“Many in Congress, me included, are deeply troubled that you may be willing to further trade or give away U.S. missile defenses to get closer to your goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” Turner said.

Turner called on the president to make public several draft missile defense agreements with the Russians that have been reported in news accounts but which remain secret.

“Such transparency would be the best way to resolve concerns in the Congress about your statement to President Medvedev … about your intentions for missile defense,” Turner said.

Ellen Tauscher, the administration’s special envoy for missile defense, has denied any secret agreements with Russia—draft or otherwise—exist.

However, U.S. officials said Tauscher drafted an agreement meant to be signed by Obama and Medvedev at the 2011 summit meeting in Deauville, France, that was withdrawn from consideration by White House lawyers amid concerns that the draft contained legally binding constraints on U.S. missile defenses.

Russia is demanding the U.S. government provide written legal assurances that U.S. missile defenses planned for Europe are not intended for use against Russian missiles, something the Pentagon has refused over concerns that it would limit U.S. sovereign rights of defense.

Obama was caught on camera in March telling Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev he would have “more flexibility” after his re-election to pursue a deal with Russia.

Republicans have seized on the comments and have accused the president of acquiescing to Russia at the cost of U.S. security in secret negotiations.

“The issue of the president’s secret deal with the Russians is not really one that’s open to interpretation,” Rep. Michael Turner (R., Ohio) said on the floor of the House. “This is not some speculation. Do we know what the terms are? No. That’s a secret.”

“What is the president’s response when we ask, ‘What are the terms of this deal, Mr. President? The terms that you won’t let the American public see.’ He says nothing.”

The issue of missile defense has been a source of contention between the U.S. and Russia for several years, with the Russians claiming shields, placed in Europe, would be aimed at it. Obama has struck a softer line on the issue than former president George W. Bush. He pulled out of plans to construct missile defense installations in the Czech Republic.

“This is my last election. … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama told Medvedev in March.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev replied.