The news that President Obama has finally decided to move ahead with the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be the secretary of defense illustrates the difference between politics and policy. Last year while in the midst of a re-election year Jewish charm offensive, the president not only reiterated that he would never allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon but explicitly disavowed any intention of backing off that pledge and adopting a policy centering on “containing” the Islamist regime. But election years are for promises and second terms are about policy implementation. The appointment of Hagel, who, despite strong opposition from the pro-Israel community and gays, is a lock to be confirmed by his former Senate colleagues, illustrates the gap between what Obama’s supporters were told and what is likely to happen over the next four years.
The president’s defenders spent the last year trying to convince others and themselves that Obama is not only a good friend of Israel but that he should be trusted to take action against Iran if diplomacy fails. But placing someone at the head of the Pentagon who has been an opponent of a tough policy on Iran and a stern critic of Israel and its supporters sends a clear signal that Tehran has little to worry about from a second Obama administration.
Some of Obama’s critics have worried that once re-elected, he would end the U.S.-Israel alliance, but such a scenario was never in the cards even though he is the least friendly president to the Jewish state in a generation. The alliance has such a broad American constituency and security cooperation between the two countries has been institutionalized to the point where not even having a Hagel running the Pentagon can derail it. The next four years will see plenty of tension between Obama and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will be re-elected later this month, but there are severe limits to how far the president can go when venting his spleen about the Israelis–and he knows it.
However, the Hagel appointment does illustrate not only his level of comfort with someone who has floated Walt-Mearsheimer-style rhetoric about the “Jewish lobby” but also a man who has been an advocate of taking the use of force against Iran off the table. It can be argued that having him at the table when the president will determine when diplomacy has failed (as if it has already not been demonstrated time and again that the idea of a diplomatic window with Iran is a myth) or if an attack to forestall an Iranian nuke is wise will not predetermine the outcome of those discussions. But how is it possible not to draw conclusions from the fact that Obama has chosen as his chief advisor on military and security issues a person who will fight tooth and nail to let Iran off the hook no matter what happens?
The president may have told last year’s AIPAC conference that the United States would not contain a nuclear Iran and then told the nation during his third debate with Mitt Romney that a deal with Tehran means that it must not have a nuclear program. But while Congress could make his life miserable if he tried to pressure Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, there will be no such leverage when it comes to forcing him to take action on Iran.
Four years of Obama’s of attempts to engage Iran or to negotiate with them coupled with belated and loosely enforced sanctions have already led the Iranians to conclude that the U.S. is a paper tiger that they need not fear. Hagel’s nomination will confirm them in this belief and dooms any effort to revive the P5+1 talks to failure. It will also make it clear to the Israelis that they are probably on their own when it comes to the Iranian threat.
There’s little doubt that Hagel will backtrack on some of his Iran positions during his confirmation hearings. And we will be reassured that the president makes policy and that Hagel’s job will be just to implement it. But an administration with such a person in a position of influence cannot be trusted to fairly evaluate the nature of the Iranian threat or to deal with it. No matter what was said by the president on the Iran issue last year, Hagel’s appointment shows his promises will have little to do with what ultimately happens during the next four years. That’s a point that the Senate needs to take into account as it prepares to consider this nomination.
Obama lied? How shocking!
We always knew that Obama would not lift a finger to stop Iran's nuclear capacity. Netanayahu knows it and Israel- as always- will have to do the dirty work itself.
Question is, will Israel be able to do anything with the Obama-Hagel duo. There are surely a million passive and deniable ways for the administratio to make such a mission difficult if not impossible for Israel.
Well, now is the time, then, if not yesterday.
Perhaps strategically, but with the election coming up….
this is not a decision Bibi's coalition has ever felt comfortable making. elections or no. if reports are true that Bibi personally, himself is prepared to pull the trigger maybe later when red lines are crossed but so far … Obama couldn't prevent an AQ mob from torching his own consulate–and he never could be counted on to protect Israel in case of counter-attack — is anything different today…
That Obama can't be counted on anything except perhaps interference is a given. With Hagel in Defense and Valerie Jarrett pulling O's marionette strings, it will be all but impossible for Israel to do anything because it will be sabotaged. And Heavens help Israel if Obama actually lifts a finger to help; then Israel will "owe" big time for something that's as important to the US, Europe and the Arabs as to Israel. The election problem is not about cynical worries over winning or losing, but about decision-making which involves thousands of people in the middle of personnel changes.
Israel will not tell the United States about an impending operation and the United States is weakening its control over access corridors. I just don't see how this Administration can interfere any more than it would have in its first 4 years or that it really has the juice to prevent an operation. It may, of course, tell an Israeli government that Israel is on its own in the aftermath of any such operation. But I don't think that Bibi has been able to commit to an Iranian operation, up to now. I don't think he had support in the security cabinet or with the security heads and the military for such an operation so imo through till the elections it's status quo. After the elections I agree could be a time for a reassessment.
I don't know whether Israel would be able to hide the preps for such a large and complex operation from US intelligence. This isn't Osirak. In any case, the IDF would have to inform US forces in the region and Arab states upon commencement, so as not freak out everyone with magawatts of coded transmissions and a slew of bogies on their radar screens. n nA worse situation, I think, is if Obama helps out, in which case he will demand a re-start of the "peace-process" with the usual request that Israel show "good faith" by pre-emptively capitulating to the PA.
Oh, yeah, forgot: Begin count-down for Paulbot and Joo-hater arrivals on my mark. Set at 0615 h GMT, 1315 h EST,
1839 h EST: Detected multiple comment vote-downs. Initiate general alert for stealth Paulbot/s on site. Keep your eyes peeled and your powder dry, people; things may get rough.
What this means is that Valerie Jarrett's accomodating approach to dealing with Iran has no significant opposition in the Obama administration. Make no mistake, she's calling the shots on this issue, and the mullahs have every reason to be celebrating this day.
as they have been celebrating ever since Nov. 6. remember the stories about Jarrett "engaging" with Tehran, which the White House vehemently denied? yeah, right.
If Hagel IS nominated, and if Obama also nominates Jack Lew for SecTreas, then a few heads will explode over the useless conflicts of those confirmation hearings. Jack Lew made his money heading a hedge fund at Cii that bet against the housing market? Oy! Might as well nominate Henry Ford Senior for both jobs! n nHowever, still think the Jews should let the LGBT Lobby lead on Hagel. You all do realize the LGBT Lobby really intimidates everyone?
The first thing Israel needs to do is withdraw from the F-35 program. Hagel would make it untenable anyway and all Israeli technology would wind up in Turkey and therefore Iran. The F-35 is a giant albatross that has even less probability of success than the F-22 which Obama killed. Israel needs to take that money and invest it in a new generation of jet powered strike drones.
I wonder how many GOP senators and even Democrats will vote for someone who talks about "the Jewish lobby"? He didn't even say "Israel lobby." He's one step away from "the Jews."
and it doesn't matter if Hagel is ever actually confirmed or not; the Iranians have gotten the message. and just as they–and we–suspected, Obama doesn't have the stomach for stopping Iran militarily from their nuclear ambitions. n nbut why is Obama doing this? he's spitting in the eye not only of the reviled Republicans, but also his supposed allies in the LGBT community. Hagel has no support among Democrats or Republicans: why does Obama want this fight so bad, especially after the Susan Rice thing? n nI wonder how those liberal "Jews" who voted to reelect him are feeling now. do they get it yet, do you think? anybody know the baruche (sp?) you say before drinking the koolaid?
….anybody know the [bracha] you say before drinking the koolaid? n nGood one! Shehakol on most drinks, including Koolaid which is not a true fruit juice. But that's not what you meant, clearly, rulieg. Berachot.org, one of the best sites on the subject doesn't return results for "poison." Several sources suggest a bracha acharonah, others believe you cannot say a bracha on poison. As with all such questions, ask your rabbi or a reputable posek. n nNot that liberal Jews will obsess over that one.
regarding; n n"and it doesn't matter if Hagel is ever actually confirmed or not; the Iranians have gotten the message. and just as they–and we–suspected, Obama doesn't have the stomach for stopping Iran militarily from their nuclear ambitions. n nanyone who needed to hear 'the message' got it when Obama first went on his middle east tour n nthe rest of Obama's followers seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend that which conflicts with their fantasies about the man or as big mo said n n"silence means consent" n ncognitive dissonance- n nObama says what he has to say when he wants something, his lying and pandering is outrageous n nHe has learned takkiya and kitman well
The basic assumption of this article is false. Containment in the sense describe here means Iran has already developed or will develop nukes. There is absolutely no evidence that Iran has any interest in doing so. So, the whole argument is moot. n nAll these discussions about the Iranian nuclear program are based on a charade. The sanctions have nothing to do with the nuclear program. They are merely intended to destroy the Iranian economy because Iran is the only country in the Middle East that stands up to the United States. Unfortunately, this situation is not going to change no matter how many sanctions are put on Iran. So, let everybody get used to it. The U.S. is going to be completely defeated without the firing of a single shot.
???? n nThe International Atomic Energy Agency has issued a blizzard of reports indicating that Iran is pursuing nuclear weaponization. n nNot from "the Lobby" but from the UN. n nThe notion that this White House or Congress simply wish to destroy the Iranian economy because Iran "stands up to the United States" is beyond belief, not to mention beyond the apparent intention of the last sentence, that the "U.S. is going to be completely defeated without the firing of a single shot" which would imply Iran will get its nukes. n nIf Iran wasn't looking to get them it would have let the IEAE check out its sequestered military and underground experimentation and enrichment facilities long time passing. n nIt is the peculiar logic of left and right-wing libertarian estrangement that supporting foreign powers "standing up to the United States" is seen as the epitome of patriotism, worthy of admiration and suitably Latin handles. Personally I've always liked "Publius"
You obviously have not read any of the IAEA reports on Iran. There is no concrete evidence in ANY IAEA report that Iran is pursuing weaponization of its nuclear work. The incompetent head of IAEA Amano has included false and purely speculative speculations that they may have done some studies 10 years ago. Who cares?
No concrete evidence? O dear, well, that settles it then. All a big silly mistake. Egg on our face, what! So sorry old chap; rug looms and centrifuges look so much alike, especially when obscured by twenty metres of reinforced concrete….oops, hah-hah, that'd be that concrete evidence, methinks.
You are delirious and you don't know what you are talking about. n nThere is nothing wrong with centrifuges or concrete walls. You still don't know that centrifuges are needed for even 3.5% enriched uranium? Also, do you want them to build their nuclear sites in open space so that the barbarian can go and bomb them easily? You know who the barbarians are I presume.
They have run simulations on initiating fission detonation–they have refused access to facilities suspected of housing high explosive shaped charge trials. It is hard to think of a statement more inane than accusing the Jews of being barbarians and desiring to destroy Iran out of pure evil, Mr. Quinteranus. We have nothing better to do? You think? Ah yes, we pull the marionette strings of millions. We are legion. Again, the classic anti-Semitic response, evidence contrary to the axiom that the Jews are demonically depraved is waved away as fabricated.
Hahahaha! Well, no Paulbots, but a bona fide Mullahbot shaking his finger, lying like a rug and issuing the standard Islamist threats. n nAnyway, a good summary and heads-up from "Quinterius" on how the Mullah regime is cranking-up the messianic nuttery bit over there and testing the waters here. Never a good sign. It's the same message "Quinterius" posted in The Economist and elsewhere back in 2010, so they think it works…and who can really blame them? A few "vampires" knocking out an oil installation there and a naval port here might bring in a bit of sobriety and facilitate productive dialogue, but fat chance of that with Jarrett and Chuckie running the US.
Lying like a prayer rug?
More vacuous garbage from your uneducated mouth. You haven't said one intelligent word in a row yet. Repeat first grade. These pages I thought were for adults.
Yes, these pages are for adults but autistic dolts keep showing up. And here you are. A rock with a wig and a ukelele might come up with something more useful.
Jonathan Tobin seems to believe that ‘HayGull’ is a “shoe in”. This is quite perturbing as I readily confess my relative knowledge on the subject is inferior.
However, if tens of millions of Jewish Americans could believe in Obama and vote to give him four more years after what he did the first four, then, why, may I ask, should this one person not be able to believe that just maybe, Hagel will be rejected by The US Senate.
It is time to mobilize, no delay. The world we know is hanging in the balance. Disaster is before us. Hagel is just the beginning. Assume Obama will hard brake the support of Israel in the face of cataclysmic attacks. It can be as passive as just holding up the re-armament.
This is what is building up and in the works, it is obvious to me.
Israel had better develop options, all kinds of them and they better be viable.
War with Iran would be mad and criminal. If Hagel is cautious about that, God bless the man. n nI favor a full rapprochement with Iran,but I doubt Obama has the guts or the vision for that. Never dud I think I'd be nostalgic for Dick Nixon..
War with Iran? Perish that thought, Grumpy. Those mullahs and their muscular young man toys are bad business, I tell you. A well-timed sudden reduction in government personnell in Tehran to reduce pension pay-outs, a little tunnel back-filling boom-booms in Isfahan and clearing a few naval installations to make room for snazzy new tourist hotels is what old Dick would have most likely done.
Dick stood down the Russians in a defcon alert to arm Israel in 73. True, he and Kissinger put heavy pressure on Israel not to strangle the Egyptian 6th Army but in the midst of Watergate, if I remember correctly, he kept the pipeline flowing.
Nixon was a far far far friendlier President to the Jews and Israel than you remember.