Source: Gatestone Institute
By Alan M. Dershowitz
Submitted by Dan Friedman, NYC
President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense risks increasing the likelihood that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. It poses that risk because Hagel is well known for his opposition both to sanctions against Iran and to employing the military option if necessary.
These views are inconsistent with the very different views expressed by President Obama. The President has emphasized on numerous occasions that he will never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and will use military force if necessary to prevent that "game changer."
The nomination of Hagel thus sends a mixed message to the mullahs in Tehran, who will likely interpret it as a change from a red light to a yellow or green one when it comes to their desire to develop nuclear weapons. Sending a mixed message at this point can increase the chances that Iran will miscalculate and act in a foolhardy manner thus requiring the actual use of the military option—an eventuality that nobody wants.
The goal of America's policy toward Iran has always been to frighten the mullahs into believing President Obama's threat to use military force if sanctions fail. "I don't bluff", President Obama has famously and publicly stated. It is imperative that the Iranian leadership believe this. If they do, they may well decide that the sanctions they are currently undergoing are too painful to endure, if the end result is that they will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. If they don't believe President Obama's threat, then the sanctions alone will not dissuade them from pursuing their nuclear goal. The nomination of Senator Hagel will strengthen the hand of those within the Iranian leadership who think that President Obama is bluffing.
It is also important that the Israeli leadership believes that President Obama really has Israel's back when it comes to preventing Iran from endangering the Jewish state by obtaining nuclear weapons. Any loss of trust in this regard may result in an Israeli decision to take unilateral military action to protect its citizens against nuclear attacks.
This is the wrong time to send mixed messages by nominating a man who has, at best, a mixed record with regard to sanctions and the military option against Iran and with regard to having Israel's back.
Senator Hagel will have an opportunity to clarify, and hopefully to change, his previous statements with regard to these issues. He should be asked probing questions about sanctions, about the military option and about Israel's security. In his answers he must persuade the Iranian leadership that there is no distance between his current views and those of the President who has nominated him. The President must also persuade the Iranian leadership that his nomination of Hagel does not constitute any backing down from his commitment to use military force, if sanctions don't work.
Independence may be a virtue for a senator, but it is a vice when it presents conflicting messages at a time when it is imperative that the Iranian leadership understand that the Obama Administration, indeed the United States as a whole, speaks with one voice when it says that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, even if that requires the use of military force if all other options fail.
Normally a president, especially a president reelected to a second term with a substantial majority, should be entitled to pick his own Secretary of Defense. But when the President's decision risks sending a mixed message that could increase the chances of having to employ the military option against Iran, the Senate has an especially important role to play. The burden is now on Senator Hagel to persuade the Senate, the American people, and the leaders of Iran that he is fully supportive of the President's commitment not to contain a nuclear armed Iran, but to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring, even if that requires the use of military force to achieve that commendable goal.
Nor is this a liberal-conservative or Democratic-Republican issue. Reportedly, the Hagel nomination has been very controversial within the White House itself, with some of President Obama's closest advisers being critical of it. Many Democrats, both elected officials and rank and file voters, are deeply concerned about the wisdom of the President's nomination of Senator Hagel. Neither is this an issue that concerns only Jewish or pro-Israel voters. There are serious policy issues at stake here. Those of us who voted for President Obama and who want to be certain that Iran is never allowed to develop nuclear weapons, as the President promised, have legitimate concerns about this nomination. We hope that these concerns can be allayed by the President and his nominee, but if they are not, it will be the highest of patriotic duties to oppose Senator Hagel's nomination.
US Senator, Rand Paul, Visits Jerusalem
And Calls on Washington to Cut Aid To Israel
Source: Arutz Sheva
By Annie Lubin
As talks of the nomination of former US Republican senator Chuck Hagel begin to heat up and his fellow lawmakers get ready to pour over his record of anti-Israel legislation, another Republican senator and possible 2016 presidential hopeful has expressed a shocking statement on a recent trip to Israel that the US should cut its foreign aid to its closest ally in the Middle East.
On his first trip to Israel, US Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) called on the US to reduce its foreign aid to Israel, which amounts to around $3 billion per year for military purposes, Russia Today reported.
Paul told the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies that "borrowing from one country to give to another,” only serves to put more pressure on the US and to burden it with more debt, adding, “It will be harder to be a friend of Israel if we are out of money. It will be harder to defend Israel if we destroy our country in the process...I think there will be significant repercussions of running massive deficits . . . you destroy your currency by spending money you don’t have.”
Israel is one of America’s top foreign aid recipients, receiving about one-fifth of the US foreign aid budget. To date, the US has given Israel $115 billion in assistance, mostly for military aid, RT reported.
Paul added that cutting aid forces Israel to become more sovereign and less reliant on the US, citing a 1996 speech by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in which he laid out plans to wean the country off US aid.
Even though the US and Israel have a strong alliance, the US has surpassed $6 trillion in debt and Paul argues that reducing foreign aid across all countries in the Middle East could help alleviate the amount of borrowing it does each year.
Foreign policy experts John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walk told RT that while many in the US might not agree with calls to cut aid to Israel, the US debt is only growing and Washington continues to borrow money from countries like China and reducing foreign aid may help alleviate the debt. “This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain,” they said.
“It’s unlikely anything changes, but I think it is worth discussing,” Paul said.
The senator also added that before making such a cut to Israel's aid, the US should first reduce assistance to countries with tense relationships to the US, such as Pakistan and Egypt.
“I’m concerned that some of the weaponry that we are currently giving to Egypt may one day be used against Israel,”he said.