Is Hagel for Defense

Ever since the idea that Chuck Hagel would be nominated to take over at defense the neoconservatives and Likudniks have been up in arms and every attempt has been made to slime him. See:

• The Borking of Chuck Hagel
• Chuck Hagel and America First (Updated)
• Chuck Hagel - Not Crazy Enough
• Slimeing Hagel

Well now it's being reported that Obama likely to nominate Chuck Hagel for Defense secretary.

President Obama is expected to nominateChuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and Vietnam veteran, to be Defense secretary, officials said, setting up a confirmation battle with lawmakers and interest groups critical of Hagel's views on Israel and Iran.
White House officials said Friday that the president hadn't formally offered the job to Hagel, but others familiar with the process said that the announcement could come as soon as Monday.
Hagel, who was elected to the Senate from Nebraska in 1996 and retired in 2008, was awarded two Purple Hearts for wounds he received as a soldier in Vietnam. His experience serving in that war made him wary about using force unless other options had been tried, he said in a recent interview with the history magazine Vietnam.
"I'm not a pacifist. I believe in using force but only after a very careful decision-making process. … I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war," he said.

 And yes the character assassination has start already resumed and who better to start it out than little Billy Kristol. So what is Bill's complaint?  Hagel tells the truth.

In a post yesterday waxing enthusiastic about Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, Michael Moore called attention to a statement of Hagel that I don't believe had been previously much noted. Here it is, from September 2007: 

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are," said the Republican Senator from Nebraska Chuck Hagel to law students of Catholic University last September. "They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs."

This rounds out a Hagelian worldview—but I also wonder if it could be the straw that breaks the back of Hagel's chances. It's true that senators have been notified in the last few days that Hagel is the likely choice. But the latest AP story has the Obama administration keeping the door open for the president to go in a different direction: "White House aides said the president has not made a final decision on either post and won't until he returns from Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family. Obama is due back in Washington Sunday morning." Now, when Obama returns, he'll have to come to grips with the Hagel war-for-oil statement.

Of course it was about oil.  Cheney himself was meeting with the major oil companies before 911 to divide up the Iraqi oil fields. Another problem is that Obama has not been inclined to let the Israeli tail wag the US dog and Hagel is not likely to change that.

I think Daniel Larison gets it right:

Yes, McCain and the usual hard-liners will grandstand during the hearings, but they likely would have done that anyway, and I doubt that there most Senate Republicans want to be seen blocking Hagel. Not only would that be an extraordinary thing to do in response to any Cabinet nomination, but it would be unheard of to do it to a former colleague and a member of their own party. Republican hard-liners will do what they can to make the hearings a tiresome and drawn-out process, but in so doing they will simply be reconfirming why the public doesn’t trust them and why Hagel was the right choice.

TED -- Israel and Iran: A love story?

Will The Borking of Hagel Backfire?

I have written about the vicious attacks on Chuck Hagel by the Israeli Lobby and the neo-cons here, here and here.  James Fallows thinks the attacks may have been so baseless and vicious that they may have actually backfired.

People who have seen this sort of cycle before know how it typically ends. The nominee becomes "damaged" or "toxic" or "too hot to handle" or merely "embattled" or "controversial." An administration that has to choose its battles, chooses not to get messed up in one like this. That's what appeared to happen with Susan Rice last month, and with a number of proposed Obama selections four years ago.
This time, the preemptive strike may possibly have gone too far and been too crude. The most promising recent development is a letter today from nine former ambassadors, who individually and collectively embody "respectable" U.S. government views (including five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel). They all speak on Hagel's behalf, and against the smear campaign to force Obama to drop him. The letter is at the Foreign Policy site, and you can see it there (if you want to deal with a new mandatory sign-in process that FP has instituted). Or you can read about it inPolitico. It begins this way: "We support, most strongly and without qualification, President Obama's reported intention to nominate Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense."

Individuals who would normally remained silent are coming to Hagel's defense. From the Foreign Policy site:

"Each of us has had the opportunity to work with Senator Hagel at one time or another on the issues of the Middle East. He has invariably demonstrated strong support for Israel and for a two-state solution and has been opposed to those who would undermine or threaten Israel's security."
Who signed the letter: Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to NATO and Greece;
Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan;
Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and Syria;
William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel;
Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt;
Sam Lewis, former Ambassador to Israel;
William H. Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia; Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia;
Frank G. Wisner, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Ambassador to Egypt and India.

Now who are you going to listen too?  These diplomats or William Kristol.
James Joyner had intended not to speak out since Hagel is his boss but:

It's perfectly reasonable to debate Hagel's views on the size of the defense budget, how best to respond to Iran's nuclear program, or, indeed, US security policy vis-a-vis Israel. Even sideline discussions, such as whether it's time for a woman to head the Pentagon or the wisdom of Democratic presidents routinely nominating moderate Republicans to this particular post, are well worth having.
What's beyond the pale, however, is the campaign of libel and innuendo underway by the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and others declaring Hagel to be "anti-Israel" or even "anti-Semitic" in an attempt to poison the well. It's an outrageous charge that's sadly wielded all too often against Americans who deviate from the hard line Likudist position on the Israel-Palestine debate. We've somehow arrived at the bizarre point where espousing the platform of the Israeli Labor Party is enough to get an American politician labeled "anti-Israel."

Hagel's enemies are the perfect reason to appoint him.

Update
Now the Cubans are after Chuck Hagel:

Rubio Threatens to Hold Hagel
Rubio comms director: 'I’m sure we would have questions about Cuba positions'

The Borking of Chuck Hagel

As I noted yesterday the Zionists, neo-cons and the Israeli Lobby are all going after Chuck Hagel with knives sharpened because he had the nerve to say he placed the interests of The United States above all else.  Daniel Larison calls it The Attempted Borking of Chuck Hagel.

Well it's no different today.  We have the Washington Post editorial board (AKA Fred Hiatt) with a hit piece.

FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.
The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense “sequester” cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta’s comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. “The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,” he responded. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.”

According to Hiatt Hagel is a bad choice because he opposes many of the really stupid and dangerous things that Fred is or has been in favor of.  Of course it is always about Israel and the major opposition to Hagel  is his opposition to going to war with Iran.

And of course Bill (never been right about anything) Kristol is involved again today.

The William Kristol-founded conservative Emergency Committee for Israel says it’s launching cable ads starting Thursday slamming Chuck Hagel, the latest in a spate of criticism over the man who’s said to top President Barack Obama’s list for Secretary of Defense.
The spot, which hits Hagel for voting against sanctions on Iran, is an indication of the next phase of attacks on the former lawmaker, whose past stands on Israel have gotten the most attention.

 Here is a sample:

It goes on: “And while President Obama says all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear Iran, Hagel says military action is ‘not a viable, feasible, responsible option.’ President Obama: For Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel is not a ‘responsible option.’ “

So, Hagel is not acceptable because he's not insane.

Dana Milbank in Fred Hiatt's Washington Post does come to Hagel's defense.

The Hagel hit is wrong on the merits, but it’s particularly egregious because the former senator from Nebraska is among the best and bravest public servants. He was an enlisted man in Vietnam, earning two Purple Hearts in jungle combat. In his legislative career, he was a powerful voice against the chicken hawks who have recklessly sent American troops to their deaths; he became one of the mostoutspoken critics of George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq war.
Hagel would probably be swiftly confirmed by the Senate, and he should be: A man of unassailable military credentials who regards war as a last resort is exactly the sort of person to head the Pentagon.

The fact that Chuck Hagel is opposed by the Israeli Lobby and the neo-cons is exactly why he is a great choice.

Chuck Hagel and America First (Updated)

Chuck Hagel has made it clear that he puts the interests of the United States first.  This of course has upset the powerful Israeli lobby.

Bret Stephens:

Ripe, finally, because Mr. Hagel's Jewish lobby remark was well in keeping with the broader pattern of his thinking. "I'm a United States Senator, not an Israeli Senator," Mr. Hagel told retired U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller in 2006. "I'm a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that."
Read these staccato utterances again to better appreciate their insipid and insinuating qualities, all combining to cast the usual slur on Jewish-Americans: Dual loyalty. Nobody questions Mr. Hagel's loyalty. He is only making those assertions to question the loyalty of others.
Still, Mr. Hagel managed to say "I support Israel." This is the sort of thing one often hears from people who treat Israel as the Mideast equivalent of a neighborhood drunk who, for his own good, needs to be put in the clink to sober him up.

So, because Chuck Hagel puts the US first makes him antisemitic.

Of course Abe Foxman of the ADL had to weigh in:

Chuck Hagel would not be the first, second, or third choice for the American Jewish community’s friends of Israel. His record relating to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship is, at best, disturbing, and at worst, very troubling. The sentiments he’s expressed about the Jewish lobby border on anti-Semitism in the genre of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and former president Jimmy Carter.

So Hagel will resist letting the tail wag the dog.  A good thing in my view.  Israel is not a US ally but a client state - a dependent.  Israel contributes little if anything to the security of the United States but depends on this country for it's very survival.  There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israeli actions when they are not in the best interests of the US.  Daniel Larison:

Hagel has not been a maximally hawkish supporter of Israel, but the smear against Hagel on this point is particularly loathsome and of course has absolutely no merit. If Hagel criticized Israel’s 2006 Lebanon war, that’s because the overkill and folly that war represented deserved to be criticized. If he believes that attacking Iran would have disastrous consequences and war ought to be avoided, that makes him unusually sane for a member of the political class.

Update:
Peter Beinart takes Stephens to the wood shed with a little reminder about who else put the US first.

A guy named Ronald Reagan said so in 1981, when AIPAC and the Israeli government were lobbying against America’s sale of AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. “It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy decisions,” Reagan told the press. Was Reagan implying that AIPAC—a largely Jewish organization—was doing the business of “other nations” and thus disloyal to the United States? Luckily for the Gipper, Stephens didn’t write a column back then.

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.

Europe piles pressure on Israel over settlements

Europe piles pressure on Israel over settlements (via AFP)

Europe piled pressure on a defiant Israel on Monday over the Jewish state's plans to build new settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank after the Palestinians won upgraded status at the United Nations. UN Security Council permanent members Britain and France as well as Denmark and Sweden summoned…

Ceasefire opens up deeper waters for Gaza's fishermen

Ceasefire opens up deeper waters for Gaza's fishermen (via The Christian Science Monitor)

For the first time in more than three years, Gaza fisherman Mushtaq Zedan took his boat out Saturday to the deeper, more abundant waters that were off limits to him under the Israeli blockade. "It was like a dream when I reached the six mile limit," says Mr. Zedan, a father of four who inherited his…

Gaza truce holds as region steps back from brink

Gaza truce holds as region steps back from brink (via The Christian Science Monitor)

Hamas leaders in Gaza declared victory over Israel on Thursday, and thousands of flag-waving supporters rallied in celebration as the battered territory entered its first day of calm under an Egyptian-brokered truce that ended the worst cross-border fighting in four years. Eight days of punishing Israeli…

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'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?

I'm Going To Pound My Chest Harder

Mitt Romney gave another foreign policy speech today and it was like all the speeches and Op-Ed's before it - a lot of false platitudes about apologies and weakness. What policy there was sounded just like what Obama is already doing but apparently Romney is going to pound his chest harder.
Romney:

In Syria I’ll work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and then ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks helicopters and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously through our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran, rather than sitting on the sidelines. It’s essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

Of course this is pretty much what Obama is doing.  We are working with other gulf States to arm the Syrian rebels including CIA agents on the border.  So what is Romney going to do differently - pound his chest harder.

Iran:

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran and will — and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf. And I’ll work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions, not just words, that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.

This sounds a lot like what the Obama administration has been doing for three years. So what is Romney going to do differently - pound his chest harder.

Daniel Larison:

Perhaps the most striking thing about Romney's speech was that it was even less specific than some of his previous statements. He was content to rule out "flexibility" on missile defense with Vladimir Putin, but neglected to mention that his own preferred policy toward Russia is one aimed at undoing all of the gains of improved relations with Moscow. Romney would like to benefit from the appearance of taking a harder line without having to address the likely consequences of that position, which could include reduced Russian cooperation in supplying the war in Afghanistan.

Romney like his FP advisers are still locked in  a cold war mindset.

Like George W Bush Romney has little knowledge and even less interest in Foreign Policy and has surrounded himself with many of the same advisers that brought us Iraq and Afghanistan.  There is every indication that he would let the tail, Israel, wag the dog, the U.S., once again.  Even if he had plans to fix the economy it would be for naught since his probable Foreign Policy adventures would make them irrelevant.

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

Romney and Foreign Policy Plattitudes

Romney goes to The Wall Street Journal to present us with a foreign policy statement. Like all Romney policy statements it is devoid of substance and loaded with neoconservative platitudes and talking points.

In this period of uncertainty, we need to apply a coherent strategy of supporting our partners in the Middle East—that is, both governments and individuals who share our values. This means restoring our credibility with Iran. When we say an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability—and the regional instability that comes with it—is unacceptable, the ayatollahs must be made to believe us.
It means placing no daylight between the United States and Israel. And it means using the full spectrum of our soft power to encourage liberty and opportunity for those who have for too long known only corruption and oppression. The dignity of work and the ability to steer the course of their lives are the best alternatives to extremism.
But this Middle East policy will be undermined unless we restore the three sinews of our influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values. That will require a very different set of policies from those President Obama is pursuing.

OK Mitt, what different policies?  How would your policy differ from Obama's besides turning US Mid East  policy over to Bibi Netanyahu?   In reality Romney has no foreign policy ideas of his own and has been possessed by the neocons.  Doesn't Mitt realize most American's are not real crazy about the neocons and their endless wars?  I guess not.  I wonder if the Mormons have exorcisms.
Ed Kilgore:

Think about this: Mitt Romney is running for president on a platform of indistinguishable and conjoined exceptionalism for the U.S. and Israel. And because Israel faces a vastly greater military threat, this means America would abandon its own independence of action and consign its fate to Bibi Netanyahu, a man whose views on peace and security are highly controversial in Israel itself.
Republican foreign policy thinking has had to go through a lot of twists and turns to arrive at this extraordinarily anomalous place. But the bottom line seems to be remarkably similar to the one embraced twelve years ago by George W. Bush and his advisors, who took office determined to wage war with Iraq, despite the cover of all the middle-school bully-boy talk of preventing war by plotting it constantly.If Romney wins and the United States supinely follows Bibi into yet another, and this time vastly more dangerous, Gulf war, nobody can say we were not warned.

The thing that is so puzzling about this is it's not going to get him any votes from those who wern't going to vote for him anyway and could cost him the vote of some who would have.
Update:
Charles Johnson nails it:

But this pile of empty verbiage is amazing in at least one respect: somehow, Romney managed to write an entire piece about Middle East policy without mentioning either Iraq or Afghanistan. An odd omission, perhaps explainable by the fact that both of these long-term wars were fairly well devastating to the jingoistic “American strength” line Romney’s feeding to the right — so Romney just pretends they don’t exist.

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…

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.