Potential Defense Secretary Viewed As Soft On Iran

Ex-Sen. Chuck Hagel's "realist" approach raises concerns

Susan Rice may not be President Barack Obama's only potential confirmation headache. Reports that Obama is considering former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as a second-term defense secretary are raising alarms.

The two-term Nebraska senator's "realist" foreign policy outlook is at the heart of the matter. "He's a vocal opponent of Israel and soft on Iran," writes Commentary's Alana Goodman. "If he's nominated, it would basically mean the administration has come to terms with Iran getting the bomb."

Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon senior writer, reports that pro-Israel groups are concerned. Hagel "has long raised red flags on Capitol Hill for his controversial foreign policy views, which include sharp criticism of Israel, supporting the elimination of America's nuclear arsenal, and pushing for direct unconditional talks with Iran."

And it's not clear Hagel could even make it through Senate confirmation, despite lawmakers' usual soft spot for former colleagues. Hagel "embodies the 'blame America first' approach to foreign policy," according to a senior GOP Senate aide quoted by Kredo.

Hagel began his Senate career as a conventional conservative but soon veered left. A decade ago, in the run-up to the Iraq war, National Review labeled him as "Sen. Skeptic (R., France)" and described him as "Bush's #1 war critic in Congress."

Via Commentary and Washington Free Beacon.

Should Chuck Hagel be ruled out as defense secretary over his Iran views?

[DARSB]

Opposed the Iraq invasion, doesn't think Israel is always right, irritates ultra conservatives... Sounds like a winner to me. :-)

[PoliticalSpice]

The most pro-iran defense secretary was Rumsfeld, he eliminated Irans principle enemy in the region, spread Irans influence thoughout Iraq, and assurred the u.s. will be unable to secure international support for military action over weapons of mass dedtruction in the forseeable future. It was Kohmani who should have hung the "mission accomplished" banner across the ship.

[jessejaymes]

He opposed Bush and the Iraq war? I'll vote for him. America First? I'll vote twice for him.

[martydotcom]

Message to Netanyahu elections have consequences as do knives in the back (settlements after UN vote)

[jessejaymes]

I find it interesting how both Liberal and Conservatives view the middle east and Israel. Liberals make excuses for Palis and Conservatives make excuses for Jews.(Except of course if they don't happen to be in Israel then they tend to hate them like the KKK)

You see the settlements as wrong and a response to the UN vote to allow Palis observer status. I see the settlements as a response to the rain of rockets on Israel. The planning of the settlements didn't just happen as a result of the UN vote. That has been planned for a long long time. You pro Palis want a negotiated settlement with Israel doing all the giving. That's not going to happen. I wouldn't if I were them. Historically the Palis have been a vermin nation well outside of any issue with the Jews. They have barbarically slaughtered million of Arabs over their history and have never EVER had any kind of culture, system or constructive society. WAR is what they know and WAR is what they know. FOREVER and EVER. What I would do if I were the Jews is forcibly relocate every single Pali in Gaza and Jerusalem to the West bank, fence it off and say now you have a country. Every single Pali who crosses our border will die. Every single rocket into Israel and 1,000 of you die. And I'd do it. They are terrorists and have openly stated they will go after Jordan next. Scum nation. Pure Vermin.

[martydotcom]

@jessejaymes Your view of Netanyahu's move is contrary to every pundit worldwide, as well as admin and GOP comments. My prof is Netanyahu himself said they are a reaction to the UN vote
Jessie every president since '47 has tried peace talks. Since GW's tenure. Palist. leader Abbas says no talks while settlements are being built, Netanyahu's reaction to every attempt to start peace talks has been to seize more territory build more settlements. Netanyahu says no preconditions or no talks --- checkmate.
In case you didn't notice Israel has already walled off large sections on the W. bank, just Google "Israeli wall West Bank".
Under the Ottoman Empire prior to the Millde East being divided up by the Brits into artificial states with total disregard for tribal lands contrary to your premis the area functioned in comparative peace contrary to what you say about Palistinians. How would you feel if you family had resided in what is now Israel when in 1947 a vote said your historical home is no longer your home?
Due to existing settlements in suburban Hebron and Ramallah ( Israeli turf?) occupied by the most radical settlers, willing to shoot at and attack IDF a two state solution is rapidly becoming an impossibly difficult problem. I've been there have you?
I had numerous Israli clients prior to my retirement. The Israeli polotik does not universally support Netanyahu's gov. his support is from the ultra religious, conservatives and the not the bisiness or secular sound familiar??

[jessejaymes]

@martydotcom I have heard everything you say from liberals repeatedly. No offense meant but do you guys simply email that response around? I am not Jewish nor do I have an axe to grind with any race. But there are those of every race who simply do not deserve sympathy. I believe the Palis to be the worst people of the entire Middle East and that includes the Iranians. I have one question that I can never get an answer to when I ask a liberal this. You say "how would you feel" etc.. Well ALL of Jordan (originally called Trans Jordan) was Pali land. EVERY INCH of it. A tip of what is now Syria. Why do you Liberals never EVER suggest giving Jordan back since Jordan didn't exist prior to the creation of it by the British/Allies? Why is it only the Jews you want to cede Territory?

[martydotcom]

@jessejaymes maybe you've heard it repeatedly because its the truth!( although I'm not sure what you refer to because everything I've said to you is fact based) If you dispute any specific I'll document my statement)
The Palistian's are only able to sustain their "war" on the Israeli people due to support from Iran who openly funds and arms Hamas and Hezbollah. Very simple answer about Jordan, again you're just not aware... Jordan is a Constitutional Monarchy. King Abdullah in essence little more than a figurehead They have a duly elected Parliament. The county is a majority palest. population hence they control both their Senate and HR equivalent ( Muslim Brotherhood). The King can dissolve Parliament and call for new elections, but even that power is hanging by a thread. Who exactly would you give Jordan back to? The Palestinian majority already is running the country.
The Israeli territory has continually expanded since the 67 war. Why would it be unreasonable to ask for the return or at least to halt the land grabs settlement within preexisting Palist territory

[jessejaymes]

@martydotcom LOL once again a liberal ducks the question. I don't give a damn what Jordan is today. When the middle east was divided up the Palis were denied a homeland because of what? Atrocities committed against other Arabs with weapons supplied by Hitler. You can quote chapter and verse of what Jordan is today but IT DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO BEING CREATED BY THE BRITISH/ALLIES IN ORDER TO REWARD AN ARAB ALLY TRIBE AND PUNISH THE PALIS. Will, just once, someone answer the question, since the land now known as Jordan was owned by the Palis lock stock and barrel, does not a single liberal I have ever encountered, advocate giving the land now known as Jordan back to the Palis. ONLY Israel. Until such time as you are consistent on "fairness" to the Palis you are being prejudiced against the Jews. Period.

[MRMacrum]

Anyone nominated by Obama should consider their nomination null and void by the GOP. At least that is the way it looks given the GOP track record to date.

Personally, I think he would be a great Sec/Defense. I may not have always agreed with thim, but he always made sense and would stand up for his views.

[jessejaymes]

I like the idea of "American first".

[MRMacrum]

@jessejaymes - I like the notion of US first also. As opposed to "American Business first". The last so many decades it seems our military has been but an arm of our economic policies.

[jessejaymes]

@MRMacrum BINGO! EXACTLY!!

[Rogue]

Chuck Hagel is a good, honest and practical man. He did a great job as Senator. In either job -- secretary of state or secretary of defense -- he would be an excellent choice!

[Dan_Tien]

"Bush's #1 war critic in Congress." Two thumbs up. The only way to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons is to go to war with them. Maybe Politix should have a poll asking whether we should start another war with a country 1/5 the size of the US with about 72 million people in it.

[Denizen_Kate]

I'll second that request. A poll on whether we should get into a war with Iran would be very interesting here on Politix.

[Hireman]

No. He does not set policy -- the president does.

[Grubby]

Which is actually much, much worse. The Idiot in Chief is in charge.

[DerivePI]

sounds like someone who belongs with this administration. He should bow right in.

[RedFloppyShoes]

Oh course he is, which is why they want him

[Denizen_Kate]

No, a moderate, cooly logical candidate should never be ruled out for Sec of Defense, IMO.

"If he's nominated, it would basically mean the administration has come to terms with Iran getting the bomb." How does Alana Goodman come to such a wild conclusion? Ridiculous and illogical.

[Grubby]

Just wait. Under Obama Iran WILL be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and the world will be a far different place. The new Defense Secretary will be in the position of trying to negotiate over our own safety with the Ayatollahs.

[ConserveUSA]

Anyone who is liberal and allow Terrorists to reorganize and/or regroup should not be considered for the job. Iran should be viewed as Axis of Evil as well as North Korea.

[kirbstomp1]

I guess being a 'realist' isn't what you want on capitol hill. This is asinine. He needs to be nominated right away. Israel is giving the US a bad name. He's right on target with Bush. He's worried about Americas defense and not it's conquest. I approve.

[Thegrif]

Just another candy-ass yes man.
Iran could care less what America says anyway. Obama says, do not develop those weapons, Iran developed them anyway. Obama says, ok, but do not move those weapons, Iran moves them anyway. Obama says, ok, but you better not use them. Iran...?

Why would Iran build weapons, move those weapons into position, and then not use them?

Iran should be a parking lott right now!

[HankHemp]

No