In Chuck Hagel, President Obama is appointing a vociferous and public opponent of any military strike to stop the Iranian nuclear program–whether by the U.S. or Israel. For instance in 2006 he said, “I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option. I believe a political settlement will be the answer. Not a military settlement.” Just last year he said: “There will be a lot of killing. These things start and you can’t control. They escalate. They always do and they always will.”
Contrary to what he said, a strike on Iran is indeed a “feasible” option (it could be carried out successfully either by the U.S. Air Force and Navy or by the Israeli Air Force), but in one sense he is right–both the U.S. and Israel need to think carefully about all the ramifications of a military strike on Iran are and act only if there is no chance of stopping the Iranian nuclear program by peaceful means. But here’s the problem: The only way to stop the Iranian program by peaceful means is to act as if you’re ready to go to war. Only then is there any chance of the mullahs giving up their nuclear-bomb project. This is in many ways similar to the paradoxical logic of deterrence during the Cold War–only by showing an absolute willingness and ability to wage nuclear wage could the U.S. prevent a nuclear war from breaking out.
But if Hagel is confirmed as secretary of defense, this will be a signal to the entire region that the U.S. is not serious about doing whatever it takes to stop an Iranian nuke, thereby making war more likely by forcing Israel into a unilateral strike.
That signal is already being sent. Witness, for example, this Al Arabiya article: “Hagel to rein in Israel on Iran strike: commentators.” That very perception will not only embolden the mullahs to avoid serious negotiations; it could also force Israel to act on its own.
Both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are known to view Iran as an existential threat to the Jewish state and they have made clear many times their willingness to attack the Iranian program to prevent its completion. This is not a bluff on their part. They have not acted, however, in part because they could not convince the rest of the security cabinet and Israel’s security chiefs–the heads of the armed forces and the intelligence agencies–that there was no option but to launch a unilateral strike. Skeptics of an attack on Iran within the Israeli security establishment have argued that Israel should exhaust every remedy and act only in concert with the U.S. They have buttressed their position by pointing to all of the tough sanctions the U.S. and its allies were imposing on Iran and by citing the tough statements President Obama has made. For instance, in the third presidential debate last fall, Obama said: “As long as I’m president of the United States Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.”
But, whatever Obama’s publicly stated views, Hagel has made clear that he views bombing Iran as a bigger threat than Iran getting the bomb. If he takes office, that will send a very dangerous signal that the U.S. is not serious about doing whatever it takes to stop the Iranian nuclear program. At that point the balance of opinion within the Israeli security establishment could very well shift in favor of a unilateral strike. And if a strike were to occur, Iran could very well retaliate not only against Israel but also against U.S. forces in the region and our Arab allies. In other words, if the Senate confirms Hagel, absent a convincing transformation in his views, it would be making more likely precisely the war that he (and everyone else) would like to avoid.
Never underestimate the GCC when it comes to stopping Iran's nuclear ambition. n
I agree, mostly. However, if Obama has made up his mind that he must strike Iran, the strategic calculation is different. Appointing Hagel could bring back some element of surprise to our side. It could also help with some of our more flimsy allies, as Hagel could argue that it was truly a last resort. (Unlikely, but still good strategy.)
All of this assumes that Obama had the merest intention or signaled any serious message to Iran that it had even a second's worry it would ever do anything material against Iran. If Obama has taught us anything it's that since words are cheap, he can afford to spout billions of them. Obama has never, does not and will never do anything military against Iran. It's as plain as day. Hagel is his mouth piece and pit bull that deflects any attention from the Anointed One. Hagel wasn't nominated because of what he thinks or any sort of deeper or heartfelt understanding about anything. He was nominated because he's a mouthpiece. He will give Obama cover on this and on everything else he has planned for the DoD in the next 4 years.
Hagel's appointment illustrates once again that the far-left and the far-right can always reach accord when it comes to denying the right of Jews to avoid extermination. I'm not yet convinced that attacking Iran is the wisest course of action, but how does it help anyone besides the mullahs to signal that we will actively sabotage any proposed military option? Obama's decision seems to be motivated more by spite than by any considered policy or doctrine.
“The only way to stop the Iranian program by peaceful means is to act as if you’re ready to go to war.”
That sounds right.
But, between us, an air campaign on distant Iran by Israel’s twenty F-15s, her only planes with the necessary range,, is not a “feasible” option. Even when supported by her few air tankers. The targets are too many and too well defended and too deeply buried. And if former Secretary of Defense Gates is taken at his word, even America’s hundreds of bombers and best deep penetration bombs, can’t burn out facilities beneath mountains. The mullahs believe him. Which is why they are sitting pretty.
Which is also why Tehran must be reminded that Israel has a thousand very accurate Jericho missiles, as well as hundreds of nuclear war heads. Those can jack hammer down through mountains.
Would Jerusalem dare give Tehran a few hours evacuation warning and then launch nuclear tipped Jerichos?
If “Never Again” has any meaning, yes. The repercussions to a conventional attack, from Iran and the world, would surely be terrible. That punishment might as well be absorbed for a strike that gets the job done.
History will ultimately blame Obama and his advisers. They refused for years to effectively muscle Iran, when her design make indisputable, and gave Israel no alternative.
Is part of the reluctance to help by Obama (20 years in the pews of his mentor’s Jeremiah Wright’) and by such as Hagel, due to a hidden desire to see Israel erased? That question is shocking, but not necessarily wrong.
Any use of nuclear weapons, aka the histrionic "weapons of mass destruction", would render Israel an international pariah. Oh wait…but it already is. Nothing to lose anyway so I'd say that option is on the table.
This is a horrible betrayal. The successor to Harry Truman and John Kennedy selling out our closest and most faithful ally, the only freedom-loving, democratic state in a region seething with fanatical haters of America? An American president siding with an apocalyptic regime as anti-Semitic as Hitler’s, against a nation willing to live in peace with its neighbors? n nThe signal is sent, more clearly than ever before: our friends cannot count on us. That is the basic theory of isolationism. We appease our enemies and betray our friends so that we will have no problems. n nWhether Hagel is confirmed or not, Israel now knows beyond a doubt that it will have to deal with Iran alone. Once again, the Zionist truth will be proven: no one but a Jewish state will defend Jews.
The right has gazed into its crystal ball and — lo and behold! — it predicts that Obama will renege on his pledge to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. (Must be the same crystal ball Rove gazed into in November.)
Can't you at least use you real name, Mohammed, and spare us the cognitive dissonance of seeing the name 'Hillel' atop your vile spews?
Hillel standing on no feet on its head
Wow, I've really sent Mike the wingnut over the edge and turned besht, an idiot to begin with, into a babbling idiot.
I will explain the reference, since you use as cover a name you mock by breathing. n nSo, for the ignoramus who hates Jews but uses the name of our sages we will explain the obvious. Judaism for Idiots. In your case an idiot true who doesn't babble, just spits. n nA scoffer such as yourself asked Hillel and his "strict constructionist" partner-antagonist Shammai to explain the essence of Judaism while standing on one foot with the obvious intention of provoking them. Shammai is provoked and gives the man an angry whack with a measuring rod. Hillel replies, “That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary — [and now] go study.” n nIn between insults you might have fleetingly considered why "Commentary" is called …. Commentary. But no, duuuuuuuuuh. n nPersonally I don't have Hillel's gentle restraint. If anything Shammai was too lenient. Far better he had cracked the skull of that arrogant anti-Semitic Jew baiter wide open.. n nBut that's ancient history and this old pooch is neither Shammai nor a Hillel. n nThen again neither are you. n nA fake Jew, with no ground to stand on, not one but *two* feet in the air, upside down, parodying Jewish faith, culture, and history with each mindlessly malicious and evil taunt. n nOr a Jew, God forbid, too caught up in the myth of his ironic superiority to even be vaguely aware when he confirms his own ignorance. n nWait, Achmed, or Weinstein or whatever, there's more! n nYour parodying of Jewish culture in the Lord Ha Ha style of the mordantly superior wit is itself an unintentional self-parody of human folly as base emotion pretends to be rationality (not babble, trust us, we know you can't read English without the nikudot, make the effort). In the words of Jonathan Swift: n n"But a Broom-stick, perhaps you'll say, is an Emblem of a Tree standing on its Head; and pray what is Man, but a Topsy-turvy Creature, his Animal Faculties perpetually mounted on his Rational; His Head where his Heels should be; groveling on the Earth, and yet with all his Faults, he sets up to be a universal Reformer and Corrector of Abuses, a Remover of Grievances, rakes into every Slut's Corner of Nature, bringing hidden Corruptions to the Light, and raises a mighty Dust where there was none before, sharing deeply all the while, in the very same Pollutions he pretends to sweep away: His last Days are spent in Slavery to Women, and generally the least deserving; 'till worn to the Stumps, like his Brother Bezom, he's either kicked out of Doors, or made use of to kindle Flames, for others to warm Themselves by." n nThat's you kiddo–you never get the roshi tivot because you have yet to grasp even the A, B, C's.
"no ground to stand on, not one but *two* feet in the air, upside down" nAs a friend of mine is wont to say — he should grow like an onion, with his head in the ground and his feet in the air.
Achmed n nhis name is Achmed
you betcha. Obama's pledges come with expiration dates. As in picking at random the claims that under ObamaCare rates would drop howeversomany percentage points, or that he wouldn't permit the sequestration to go into effect, or that he he really really was going to do something about the debt. n nHillelA and the Anointed One acolytes continue to gaze into their navels, same as always
Acolytes is too kind. I would have said T.L'.s.
Well it surely is a betrayal. But let's not be going overboard with "closest and most faithful ally." It is simply a client state to a great power. And let's not have any illusions as to Israel being a major component of the fact that the region is "seething with fanatical haters of America." n nNow, that said, let's agree that Obama is cut from the same cloth as Neville Chamberlain. Surrendering the post-1967 accretions would be the same as Czechoslovakia being stripped of the Sudetenland. But at least Israel should now be united with a clear view that it is on its own. I guess there will always be some thinking that it's merely another delousing but they will be increasingly a shrill minority.
I think the Jews should go nuclear and irradiate/contaminate any of the installations they feel are most critical. I would start with a cr*p load of Jerichos (standard payload) on the homes of the mullahs, and government assembly buildings to try and disrupt any counter attack plans. nI believe the Jews have a weapon to render Iranian communications useless too. nIsreal can then make a public global statement blaming the west for not defending itself, or civilization from the barbarians. Lecture the west into defending their culture and way of life, or shut the heck up!!
Colin Powel another affirmative action hire, is in over his head. n nHe also missed a great opportunity to STFU
Colin Powell isn't in politics and seems to express no interest in returning to politics, if you can ever say he was in politics at all. His opinions while interesting aren't worth very much and don't really make or improve the case for Hagel.
Not being in the secrets of the gods, IL should consider herself to be on her own. This is the worst possible scenario. Anything else will better. To think otherwise would be suicidal and will invite a second holocaust intentionally or accidentally. This is a kind of cynical chess game imposed upon Israel & the Jews!
All the quetching about Hagel is moot, because most American jews (78%) voted for 0bama.
NCIS is the most watched TV drama in the USA. The same team that started with JAG launched the successor series, NCIS, in order to get the storylines more involved with counter-terrorism. nHollywood's reward? NCIS NEVER gets an Emmy nomination, (except for Charles Durning's singular appearance as Corporal Ernie Yost), nor Golden Globe (foreign press). n nThere is nothing anti-Zionist, or anti-Israel in any episode of NCIS, and I have watched all of them over and over because the writing and plots are so good. It is amazing how you can hear bits of dialogue you missed the first five times you watched an episode. n nClare: wait for part 2 of "Shabbot Shalom" tomorrow before you again slime the only primetime TV show still worth watching. n nGuess you missed the episodes where others are exposed as evil or corrupt, especially the CIA's Trent Kort, at least two SecNavs, etcetera. n nGibbs' Rule #5: You don't waste good. n nbtw, Gibbs wanted Rick Perry for president. A Carhartt sign appeared in Gibbs' basement, and was then draped with black crepe after Perry suspended his campaign.
Leave a comment on my web page. But does Mark Harmon control the scripts and their ideological orientation for NCIS?
It is a joke and the joke once again is on the Jews. All the Jews who put him back in there again nhave only themselves to blame.