Chuck Hagel - Not Crazy Enough

It would appear that President Obama is going to nominate Chuck Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense.

President Barack Obama’s administration has backed down from one major Senate confirmation fight — and may be running headlong into another one.
Some in the Jewish community and other Israel backers are reacting with alarm to reports that Obama is preparing to nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as secretary of defense. A senior administration official told POLITICO Friday that Hagel is the leading contender to replace Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who’s expected to step down early next year.

While Hagel is certainly no dove he is not one that approves of the Israeli tail wagging the US dog.  This has the Israeli lobby and the neo-cons up in arms.  Daniel Larison has a couple of posts here and here on the attacks on Hagel.
Not too surprisingly Bill Kristol jumps in:

As we go to press on Friday, December 14, former Republican senator Chuck Hagel appears to be the leading candidate to become the next secretary of defense. Anti-Israel propagandists are thrilled. Stephen Walt, junior partner of the better-known Israel-hater John Mearsheimer, writes that if President Obama nominates Hagel, it will be “a smart move.” Why? Because, “unlike almost all of his former colleagues on Capitol Hill, he hasn’t been a complete doormat for the Israel lobby.” Indeed, a Hagel pick would “pay back Benjamin Netanyahu for all the ‘cooperation’ Obama received from him during the first term.” Furthermore, Walt writes approvingly, Hagel is “generally thought to be skeptical about the use of military force against Iran.”
Hagel certainly does have anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides. While still a senator, Hagel said that “a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” Hagel, one of only two senators who voted in 2001 against renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, also voted in 2007 against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization and opposed the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act.
Hagel also has a record of consistent hostility to Israel over the last decade. He boasted in 2008 that, unlike his peers, he wasn’t intimidated by “the Jewish lobby.” The next year, he signed a letter urging President Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas. Later in 2009, he revisited another of his longstanding foreign policy fixations​—​his belief in the good intentions of the Assad regime​—​and told a J Street conference, “I believe there is a real possibility of a shift in Syria’s strategic thinking and policies.

So Chuck Hagel is sane - he realizes that a military attack on Iran would be insanely foolish and he refuses to kiss the boots of the AIPIC lobby.  A real plus in my book.

After all but endorsing  Mitt Romney during the recent Presidential campaign it would seem to be very unwise for  Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies to fight the Hagel nomination.  Like it or not Bibi has 4 more years of Obama.  The United States is about the only friend that Israel has left in the World.

Some are saying this nomination is an attempt to undermine the pro Israeli community.

Can anyone doubt that Obama falls within the substantial circle of politicans that bitterly resents the Israel lobby? This is the man who spiritually followed the rabidly anti-Israel Rev. Wright; who gave a tribute to former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi so explosive that it hasnever seen the light of day; who has never visited Israel during his time in office, despite having been as close as thirty minutes away in Egypt, and managing to go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq; who told Jewish leaders in July 2009 that he was deliberately adopting a policy of putting daylight between America and Israel; and who snubbed Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington DC and complained to Nicolas Sarkozy about having to deal with the Israeli prime minister.

I don't agree with much of Obama's foreign policy but if he can successfully stop the tail from wagging the dog good for him.

Israel should rethink its strategy against Hamas in Gaza

Israel should rethink its strategy against Hamas in Gaza (via The Christian Science Monitor)

Since Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006 and subsequently took control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, Israel has dealt with the "Islamic Resistance" through a policy of non-recognition, political isolation, and military containment. The recent escalation of violence in…

Israel concerned about US support post-election

Israel concerned about US support post-election (via GlobalPost)

Will there be a price for the perception that Netanyahu favored Romney? Abraham Rabinovich JERUSALEM — “Netanyahu gambled,” read a recent headline in the Tel Aviv daily Yediot Achronot. “We will pay.” The article by political commentator Sima Kadmon was referring to Prime Minister Benjamin…

Israel braces for Obama 'payback' after re-election

Israel braces for Obama 'payback' after re-election (via AFP)

Israel was bracing on Thursday for chillier ties with Washington, with pundits unanimous that a re-elected President Barack Obama will seek payback for Benjamin Netanyahu's supporting Mitt Romney. "Netanyahu gambled, we will pay," said a headline in top-selling daily Yediot Aharonot, referring to the…

Israel PM turned memorial into poll speech: Hollande

Israel PM turned memorial into poll speech: Hollande (via AFP)

French President Francois Hollande has criticised Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu for transforming a memorial service for Jews slain by an Islamist gunman in southwestern France this year into a campaign meeting. "Netanyahu came to France to campaign and we knew that," Hollande told journalists…

Israel's Netanyahu ordered Iran strike in 2010

Israel's Netanyahu ordered Iran strike in 2010: TV (via AFP)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak in 2010 ordered the army to prepare an attack against Iranian nuclear installations, though the order was later rescinded, Israeli television said Sunday. According to private television Channel 2, the order was not implemented…

Netanyahu's Bluff

Former CIA officer, Phillip Giraldi, says there is not really any possibility that Israel could do significant damage to the Iranian nuclear program by themselves.

Israel has no dedicated bomber force but it does have an estimated 125 advanced F-15I and F-16I’s, which have been further enhanced through special avionics installed by the Israel Aircraft Industry to improve performance over the types of terrain and weather conditions prevailing in the Middle East. The planes are able to fly long range missions and very capable in a bombing role but they do have their limitations.
It is generally agreed that any attempt to destroy the hardened and well-defended Iranian nuclear sites would require use of the United States-provided GBU-28, a five thousand-pound laser-guided smart bomb that can be directed to the target. The GBU-28 is regarded as accurate and able to penetrate deep into a target, which is why it has been described as the “bunker buster.” Exact performance specifications of the weapon are classified, but it is believed to be able to penetrate twenty feet of reinforced concrete. Whether that would be enough to take out the expected Iranian targets at the research centers in Natanz and Fordow, the heavy water facility at Arak, and the operating reactor at Bushehr is unknown and some analysts have opined that it might require multiple hits on the same spot to do the job. As Bushehr, the most accessible target of the three, is an active reactor, an attack would release considerable contamination.
Assuming that the US has supplied Israel with a sufficient supply of GBU-28s to go around to all the available aircraft, there remain two additional problems with the weapon that impact Israeli ability to stage an attack. First, it is so heavy that only Israel’s twenty-five F15Is are able to carry it, one bomb for each plane. For optimum use against a target, the GBU-28 also requires a clear line of sight, which means that the plane has to be flying low and relatively slowly, making the fighters more vulnerable to ground defenses, particularly with their maneuverability limited due to the bomb load. This first problem creates the second problem, which is that an attack will require a separate fleet of F-16 fighters unencumbered by GBU-28s to go in first and suppress the defensive fire, further complicating the mission.

The Israelis have another serious problem - Iran is a long way from Israel and the planes would have to be refueled at least once to get to Iran and again to make it back home.  His conclusion:

On balance, all of the above suggests that the frequently repeated threat by the Israeli leadership to attack Iran is not a serious plan to take out Iran’s nuclear sites. It is more likely a long running disinformation operation to somehow convince the United States to do the job or a deliberate conditioning of the Israeli and US publics to be supportive if some incident can be arranged to trigger an armed conflict. If one believes the two presidential candidates based on what they said in Monday’s debate, both have more-or-less conceded the point, agreeing that they would support militarily any Israeli attack on Iran. Whether Romney or Obama is actually willing to start a major new war in the Middle East is, of course, impossible to discern.

Tail wagging the dog anyone?

False Flag

Remember this from the other day?

That's the first thing I thought of when I read this:
Israeli air force shoots down drone aircraft

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The Israeli air force shot down a droneafter it crossed into southern Israel on Saturday, the military said, but it remained unclear where the aircraft had come from.
The drone was first spotted above the Mediterranean in the area of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip to the west of Israel, said military spokeswoman Avital Leibovich.
It was kept under surveillance and followed by Israeli air force jets before it was shot down above a forest in an unpopulated area near the border with the occupied West Bank.
Leibovich said it was shot down at about 10 a.m. (0700 GMT), after it travelled east some 35 miles across Israel's southern Negev desert.
Defence Minister Ehud Barak praised the interception as "sharp and effective".

They are looking for wreckage but they have already jumped to a conclusion.

Israeli parliament member Miri Regev, a former chief spokesman of the military, wrote on Twitter it was an "Iranian drone launched by Hezbollah", referring to the Lebanese Shi'ite group that fought a war with Israel in 2006. 

Is this a false flag to bring the US around on Netanyahu's insanity?

Don't Do It!

Bomb Iran?  Ex Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says don't do it. 

Painting a picture of internal political dysfunction in a dangerous world, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Wednesday night that a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences.
Neither the United States nor Israel is capable of wiping out Iran's nuclear capability, he said, and "such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable. They would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert."
Iran could respond by disrupting world oil traffic and launching a wave of terrorism across the region, Gates said.
"The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world."

He's simply saying what many of us already knew - a military attack to stop Iran's nuclear program does not pass the cost/benefit ratio test.

United Nations sanctions aimed at discouraging Iran's nuclear ambitions are starting to have an impact on the Iranian economy, he said, and "that's our best chance going forward, to ratchet up the economic pressure and diplomatic isolation to the point where the Iranian leadership concludes that it actually hurts Iranian security and, above all, the security of the regime itself, to continue to pursue nuclear weapons."
And while Israeli anxiety over Iran's intentions is understandable, he added, America should make it clear to Israel's leaders that "they do not have a blank check to take action that could do grave harm to American vital interests."

About a year ago Jeffrey Goldberg reported that Gates was none too happy with Netanyahu.

It was an extraordinary scene: President Barack Obama, sitting impassively in the Oval Office in May as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lectured him, at considerable length and at times condescendingly, on Jewish history, Arab perfidy and the existential challenges facing his country.
What was extraordinary wasn’t the message -- it was not an untypical Netanyahu sermon. What was notable was that Netanyahu was lecturing the president live on television, during a photo opportunity staged so that the two leaders could issue platitudes about the enduring bonds between their nations.
That display of impudence left the president and his team feeling unusually angry. Shortly afterward, Obama’s chief of staff,William Daley, called the Israeli ambassador in Washington,Michael Oren, to communicate the displeasure of the White House in a reportedly heated way. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who watched her husband battle Netanyahu in the late 1990s, also expressed anger and frustration about the prime minister within the administration.
Nothing in Return
But it was Robert M. Gates, the now-retired secretary of defense, who seemed most upset with Netanyahu. In a meeting of the National Security Council Principals Committee held not long before his retirement this summer, Gates coldly laid out the many steps the administration has taken to guarantee Israel’s security -- access to top- quality weapons, assistance developing missile-defense systems, high-level intelligence sharing -- and then stated bluntly that the U.S. has received nothing in return, particularly with regard to the peace process.

If there is one thing the people of Israel worry about more than Iran it's their country's relationship with the United States and they are concerned about Netanyahu's actions.

Update:
Israel lobby flack Patrick Clawson strategizes how to trick the United States into going to war against Iran on behalf of Israel.

Via Juan Cole

Netanyahu Scaremongering in 2002

Bibi Netanyahu visited the United Nations this week to talk about Iran's nuclear program.  He came complete with visual aids.  Juan Cole points out this is not the first time that Netanyahu has practiced scaremongering involving a nuclear program.  He did it in 2002 and he was talking about Iraq not Iran and he was dead wrong.

Israeli PM Binyamin “Chicken Little” Netanyahu tried to scaremonger about Iraq in 2002, as his contribution to the Anglo-American war of aggression on that country. “there is no question whatsoever,” Netanyahu said, “that Saddam” was seeking nuclear weapons. He said that Israeli intelligence reported to him that Russian scientists and North Korea were on site and actively aiding this phantom nuclear weapons program.
There was no Iraqi nuclear weapons program in 2002; it was dismantled in the early 1990s by United Nations inspectors. There were none of the chemical or biological weapons Netanyahu spoke of. No Russians. No North Koreans. Bupkes.

Israelis split over Netanyahu's UN speech

Israelis split over Netanyahu's UN speech (via GlobalPost)

Many have mocked the prime minister’s crude bomb cartoon. Others have lauded him for marking a red line with Iran. Noga Tarnopolsky JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew the world's attention with his speech at the United Nations Thursday, but surely not all of it was the…

The Hypocrisy of the Bible Thumpers

Yes, I'm addicted to the blogs at The American Conservative  because as a progressive I find myself in agreement with them more often than not. In most cases my agreement involves foreign policy but this is an exception:
Ancient (and Modern) Ignorance

Mr. Gardner, may I introduce you to Leviticus 19? Yes, I know, that’s the chapter with the funny stuff about clothing made of two different materials, but notice this passage near the end:

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. 

Notice that the people of Israel are not only commanded to love their neighbors as themselves, but also love strangers as themselves. And notice also that in an ethnically diverse and multicultural ancient Middle East, the Israelites knew what it was like to be strangers in a strange land.

As I have noted before the  evangelical Christians do a hell of a job of cherry picking Leviticus.  They sit around eating pork and shell fish in their garments of mixed fabrics while condemning gays - justifying their homophobia.  So what does this say about those brown legals and illegals?  In addition it might be something Mr. Netanyahu might want to think about if he is truly a Jew. 

Netanyahu ad in Florida

As Digby would say - for gawds sake!

Netanyahu ad to debut in Florida

Bibi Netanyahu is not running a campaign in the US - it just looks that way in this new ad.
A spot featuring only the Israeli prime minister talking about Iran is set to hit the airwaves in select Florida markets tomorrow, a media tracking source confirms.
 The spot is the work of a c4 called Secure America Now - which, thanks to its tax status, doesn't have to disclose its donors.
 A Republican involved with the project said its airing in Miami, West Palm Beach and Ft. Myers. The flight is ultimately going to be $1 million, the official said - a media-tracking source said about $400,000 has been placed so far.
 Those markets house some of the state's largest Jewish communities. The spot comes just after Netanyahu, who all but endorsed Mitt Romney in Israel in July, appeared on "Meet the Press" and distanced himself a bit from the GOP candidate's criticisms of President Obama, but also discussed Israel's concern about a nuclear Iran.
 The pollster for Secure America Now is John McLaughlin, who has worked with Netanyahu's Likud Party.

As we noted yesterday people are questioning Netanyahu's sanity or as a commentor on the above post says:

But Netanyahu is an erratic, panicky megalomaniac. His meddling in American domestic politics does great harm to Israel's relationship with the US because it feeds the trope the anti-Semitic that Israel is seeking to control the United States.

With the Israeli military and intelligence opposed to an attack on Iran in addition to over 60% of the Israeli people Netanyahu is not doing his country any good and when Obama wins in November he will be lucky to get a Visa.  Sorry Bibi, the tail can't wag the dog anymore and that is a good thing for both the United States and Israel.  For too long the U.S. has been letting their friend Israel drive drunk.

Israel: Is Netanyahu Going ‘Crazy?’

Israel: Is Netanyahu going 'crazy?' (via GlobalPost)

The Israeli prime minister’s attacks on Obama, unparalleled in Israeli-American history, may backfire as a growing chorus of Israelis and Americans question the soundness of his judgment. Noga Tarnopolsky JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu devoted a series of unprecedented…

Sorry Bibi - Americans don't want to fight your war

Bibi Netanyahu has been all over American TV trying to influence the election and get the U.S. to attack Iran.
The American people want no part of it.

The bad news first: Who can blame them? There's a constant stream of misinformation out there, and so a stunning majority of 66 percent of Americans don't know that U.S. intelligence agencies think Iran has not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon.
 .......
While nearly two-thirds of Americans see Iran as a threat (down a bit from two years ago), slightly more still want their government to talk to the Iranians. What don't Americans want? A war with Iran, especially not a unilateral one (my emphasis):

 A slim majority (51%) opposes UN authorization of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear energy facilities, with a substantial minority (45%) supporting such action. A far broader majority (70%) opposes a unilateral strike by the United States if Iran continues to enrich uranium but the Security Council does not authorize a military strike. 

That means even some of those Americans who think Iran is hellbent on developing weapons—or that Iran already has them—don't support an attack. Americans aren't that keen on the idea of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program either: 59 percent of respondents to the Chicago Council said the U.S. shouldn't commit military forces to help Israel in the event that an Israeli initiated-strike touches off a broader conflict. Nearly four-in-ten said the U.S. should jump in.

Now a majority of Americans are tired of mid east wars.  Obama's refusal to go along with Netanyahu  is probably one of the reasons  he leads Romney on Foreign Policy and defense.  Romney continues to mimic the neoconservatives and Netanyahu at his own risk.
h/t Doug Mataconis

Joe Klein on Netanyahu and Iran

I frequently disagree with Joe Klein but he gets it right here:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A great put down of Netanyahu and he get's it right - the Iranians are not crazy.  If you are looking for crazy you probably should look at Bibi.
Via The Agonist

Glen Thrush has more:

Diplomacy is, ultimately, about relationships. Obama and Netanyahu don’t really have one. And that’s created an odd and unwelcome rivalry among allies — a testy liberal-vs.-conservative chess match that mirrors Obama’s contest with Mitt Romney, who has known Netanyahu for years.
“There is a lack of rapport between these two men — they don’t like each other very much. Plus, there are serious differences between our interests and Israel’s own security interests,” said former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, who was present for several of Obama’s nine face-to-face meetings with Netanyahu.
 “I don’t think that Netanyahu is trying to influence the outcome of our election, though a lot of people see it that way,” Crowley said. “It’s about agenda-setting. He just watched two conventions where Israel and Iran were mentioned, but not significantly discussed, even with the whole rigmarole [at the Democratic convention] about Jerusalem in the platform. He’s trying to get it onto the front burner.
” But this isn’t just about policy. It’s personal. On the day Netanyahu threw down the Iran gauntlet, someone close to the hawkish, MIT-educated prime minister let it leak that Obama had declined a face-to-face meeting at next month’s United Nations General Assembly in New York to hash things out. The chatter, later denied by the White House, was that Obama said he would be too busy, and one of those unbreakable commitments was with David Letterman. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81150.html#ixzz26NgJL0i2