Pro-Israel Democrats are in a difficult spot this morning as President Obama prepares to nominate one of the least friendly members of the United States Senate in the last generation to the post of secretary of defense. Hagel’s comments about his antagonism toward the “Jewish lobby,” his votes against sanctions on Iran and Syria and his refusal to condemn anti-Semitism are a matter of record and make difficult reading for those who spent the last year working hard to persuade pro-Israel and Jewish voters that President Obama could be relied upon to maintain the alliance with Israel and to take action on the Iranian nuclear threat. At the very least, Hagel’s nomination complicates the narrative in which administration supporters claimed the president was prepared to go to the mat to stop Iran.
That’s why many Democrats as well as Republicans are casting doubt on the ability of the White House to ensure his confirmation. But some resourceful souls have been floating a counter-intuitive argument in order to smooth the way for what looks to be brutal fight in the Senate. According to this scenario, appointing Hagel actually is a signal that Obama is serious about taking on Iran. Choosing an open opponent of not only the use of force against Iran but also sanctions would, we are told, give the president cover when he is ready to go to war on Iran and silence any criticism from the left while also showing the world that America is united behind the president’s policies.
While those attempting to put forward such an idea deserve credit for both chutzpah and creativity, this is utter nonsense. It flies against not only logic but also everything we know about how the president operates. Far from providing a warning to Iran that America is prepared to take action against them, it is a neon sign proclaiming that, at best, the cabinet will be divided on what to do after the next round of no-hope negotiations fail. At worst, it will make it obvious what many have already long suspected: that President Obama has no intention of keeping his promise to stop Iran and to not consider containment as a viable option.
For all of the talk about the Hagel nomination being evidence of bipartisanship, it is actually yet another example of the main theme of the Obama presidency. Though nominally a Republican, this is, after all, a Republican who endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 as well as 2012 and has few ties left with the party that elected him to the Senate. More to the point, for good or for ill, this has been an administration in which open conflicts between cabinet secretaries has been rare. Far from encouraging independent thinking or diverse agendas, the White House has maintained a united front on big issues. So the notion that Obama is appointing someone to be the top defense and security official in the nation who has a markedly different view on Iran from his own core beliefs seems a stretch at best.
As for the idea that Obama is worried about criticism from the left should he decide to strike Iran, that is also ridiculous. As much as many liberals have expressed frustration with what they think is his weak stance toward the Republicans (at least they did before he hosed them in the fiscal cliff talks) and grumbled quietly about counter-terror policies that bear a striking resemblance to those of George W. Bush that he campaigned against, the left has done nothing to hinder this president. Should he decide on action against Iran, only the hard left would oppose him. Chuck Hagel neither enhances nor detracts from his ability to rally the nation behind any aggressive policy aimed at forestalling the Iranian threat.
The truth is far more obvious. President Obama is choosing Hagel not because he provides a dissenting view on Iran or Israel but because his views are entirely compatible with those of his future boss. The appointment is a signal to Iran that there is a senior U.S. cabinet secretary that isn’t interested in opposing them and to Israel that they may well be on their own.
That’s a tough pill for Obama’s pro-Israel supporters to swallow, but it is far closer to the truth than any scenario in which Hagel’s elevation is spun as anything but what it is: an indication of the president’s inconstancy on both Israel and Iran.
"That’s a tough pill for Obama’s pro-Israel supporters to swallow, but it is far closer to the truth". n nNow for another truth: Google the term 'blackwhite+orwell
I agree with the article's assessment of Obama and Hagel. Hagel is put forward because he and the president are on the same wavelength. n nHonestly, though, I think it is time for a "Hagel" in that position. Israel can take care of itself (with nuclear tipped missiles from their subs if necessary); we do not need and cannot afford to fight Israel's coming war with Iran for them. Plus, I just get sick of our politicians running around kissing AIPAC's rear.
Can you demonstrate where America has fought Israel's wars, n n and where America's support for Israel has not been in America's interest? n nthank you in advance for your attention
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought for Israel, dontcha know? n nNever mind that Israel thought the Iraq war was useless . . . and that Afghanistan was clearly a revenge war by the USA for 911. n nOf course, the Jews were responsible for 911, so they did in a way push the USA into Afghanistan . . . n nIt's all a little complicated, and takes a sophisticated person such as Hagel to figure it out. n n
ah yes…"fighting Israel's wars for them"…a common anti-Semitic trope. we've never yet fought a war for Israel, but Joo-haters constantly bring this up–it was one of Cindy Sheehan's favorite libels. n nas far as not being able to "afford" to help Israel, you continue to show your ignorance, not that it needed to be shown again. Israel is mandated to spend most of the money we give them on military materiel we sell them. get it? IT BENEFITS AMERICA TOO. n ntell you what: since you're so obviously in on what "the politicians" are doing, please give us one example of a politician "kissing AIPAC's rear." just one.
has dear bearperney edited his post?
Hagel should be approved without a single question or discussion. This is the guy Obama needs to own fully. He needs to own every word, every action of this guy without the slightest opportunity to send the media monkeys hither and yon to blame everything on everyone, anyone else.
Iran is a much greater threat to the Saudis and GCC, and THAT is why this 'counter-intuitive scenario' makes sense. nHuge tactical mistake to oppose Hagel as SecDef because one thinks he is anti-Israel. Just gives credibility to the myth of the 'intimidating Jews'. n nBigger mistake for Obama to keep his next SecTreas a secret while putting Hagel out first. n nHagel-hysteria is a terrible GOP disease. Just give America the most interesting confirmation hearing since Petraeus was nominated for CENTCOM (I think that was the confirmation hearing where Hillary spent seven minutes haranguing Petraeus without ever asking a single question)
That's OK. Petraeus wasn't listening to Hillary anyway; he was too busy e-mailing his girlfriend.
"this is utter nonsense" Worse than that. The opposite is true. The charm Obama finds in Hagel has everything to do with using Hagel to cover Obama's plan to do nothing against Iran.
Obama put Chuck Hagel in charge because he knows that Israel will bankrupt US Treasury if he didn’t. Israel will keep extorting the Donuthole asking for more defense aid each time Ahmadinejad farts. Everyone remembers the last Gaza Stunt Show that Netanyahu pulled to raise the US Aid from $3B to $4.5B for Israel. Chuck Hagel knows the dirty secrets that you loath to publish. Jonathan! Chuck Hagel can see through your chocolate rain GoogledJunk & WikiTrash is overwhelming. You’re tipping Chuck Hagel to apologize to Israel during confirmation speech at the Senate. Bad boy. Though Israel never supported neither Obama nor Chuck Hagel but 55-65” of American Jews voted for Obama because they are scared.
question: doesn't your drool short out the keyboard when you're typing?
Replying rulieg nBoooring googledjunk peeve. Go offensive Birkenau boy n
It's quite clear that English is not your mother tongue and that rational thought is outside your mental ability. Nor have you attained the ability to walk upright. nYou keep talking about Ahmadinejad's farts which is quite understandable since its the same gaseous vapours found between your ears. nYou truly exemplify a "donut hole" feh!
Replying yesjb nMilk your prostate n
How clever! What a unique and sentient comment! nI know and I sympathize…It's hard to type when you're just using your knuckles and you have to wipe the spittle from the keyboard, isn't it?
English may not be his mother tongue but ibn sharmooda is his matronymic.
if anyone thinks that Barack Obama picked Hagel so they could clandestinely plan an attack on Iran…I would like to buy an ounce of what you're smoking.
And I would like to forward him – for a modest commission – a business opportunity that I received by email from the widow of a former high official in the Nigerian government.
nObama is the first anti American president, what kind unthinking idiots voted for him, I am amazed anew everyday at the childishness/churlishness that comes from his administration. God help us.