Iran strangely cheered by US SecDef nomination

posted at 10:01 am on January 8, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

That’s not speculation, either.  CBS News reports this morning that the Foreign Ministry in Tehran believes that the nomination of Chuck Hagel signals “practical changes” in the US approach to Iran — and they’re probably right:

Iran’s Foreign Ministry says it is hopeful the appointment of former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to lead the Pentagon would improve relations between Tehran and the U.S.

Asked about Hagel’s nomination, ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday that Tehran was hopeful that there would be “practical changes” to U.S. foreign policy, and that nations would change their attitude towards the U.S. if it respected their rights.

Israel isn’t feeling as sunny about it, however:

Hagel’s positions on Israel’s two most pressing foreign policy issues — Iran’s nuclear program and relations with the Palestinians — appear to be at odds with the Israeli government, and critics here fear the appointment could increase pressure on the Jewish state to make unwanted concessions. The appointment could also signal further strains in what is already a cool relationship between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is expected to win re-election later this month.

“Because of his statements in the past, and his stance toward Israel, we are worried,” Reuven Rivlin, the speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Netanyahu’s Likud Party, told The Associated Press. But, he added, the strategic partnership between the U.S. and Israel is strong and “one person doesn’t determine policy.”

Netanyahu’s office refused to comment on the appointment, as did officials in the Israeli foreign and defense ministries. But Rivlin’s comments reflected what has been a common sentiment among analysts and commentators here in recent days. In their evening news broadcasts, Israel’s three main TV stations on Monday all portrayed Hagel as cool toward Israel.

It’s an odd situation when a long-time antagonist and one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism feels more cheered by a Defense Department nomination than a long-time ally.  In my column today for The Week, I argue that the Senate should be less concerned about Hagel’s inflammatory comments and more about his fringe approach to foreign policy — especially on Iran.  In fact, the real question isn’t Hagel, but what kind of message Barack Obama is sending to Iran with his nomination:

It’s puzzling enough to see how this kind of confirmation hearing benefits Obama, with all of these questions about Hagel’s past. The better questions, though, should focus on Hagel’s future in a potential conflict, for which a secretary of defense must prepare. One of the potential conflicts on the horizon is with Iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and on a somewhat less-acute plane, its support for terrorist networks such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

And Hagel’s record on Iran may be even more suspect than in any other area. He has opposed sanctions on Iran since 2001, when he opposed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (which passed 96-2), intended to prevent funding for terrorism or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Five years later, with the Iranian nuclear program exposed, Hagel gave a speech in Pakistan declaring that “a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” On at least three subsequent occasions, Hagel voted against or blocked sanctions or terror designations on Iran, all of which enjoyed wide bipartisan support.

With that in mind, what kind of signal does a Hagel nomination as the steward of American military send? Supposedly, Obama had repented of his 2008 comment that Iran was “tiny” and didn’t pose a “serious threat” to the United States. He has tried to give the impression that he learned a lesson from the weak response to the Green Revolution in 2009, and that he supported tough sanctions and a strong effort to stop the Iranian nuclear program. By naming a sanctions skeptic who also opposes the only other option to stop Iran from developing weapons of mass destruction to run the Pentagon, the future of the U.S. effort to contain Iran looks very much in doubt.

That should have supporters of Israel more worried than a remark about a “Jewish lobby” and a gay ambassador. In fact, it should have all of us worried about more than just Chuck Hagel, too, and prompt questions about Barack Obama’s intentions on Iran and security in the Middle East.

Here’s the question Hagel’s record poses for Obama after nominating this fringe voice on security: If sanctions are unacceptable and a military response is “not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” then how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Answer: They don’t. MAD for the ME. That is the goal.

Limerick on January 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Bedfellows.

Not strange.

Shy Guy on January 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM

It’s an odd situation when a long-time antagonist and one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism feels more cheered by a Defense Department nomination than a long-time ally.

Not at all odd when you consider who the nominator is, and just how much “flexibility” he has.

Here’s the question Hagel’s record poses for Obama after nominating this fringe voice on security: If sanctions are unacceptable and a military response is “not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” then how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?

By donating ours?

rbj on January 8, 2013 at 10:09 AM

The better questions, though, should focus on Hagel’s future in a potential conflict, for which a secretary of defense must prepare.

An even better question would be about Hagel’s allegiance in a potential conflict and, more importantly, that of a moron who nominated him.

Archivarix on January 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM

The Jewish lobby, representing the hateful Palestinian-children-killing Zionists, who denigrate not only Iran’s glorious cultural heritage (they’ve allowed women to vote for like, years or something, you know how Islam respects the rights of women) but Islam itself … they’re not going to be happy about this.

/Chuck Hagel

Paul-Cincy on January 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Rational actors. That is the West’s Achilles heel. The PC of it will make history. Our leaders believe monsters are mythological.

Limerick on January 8, 2013 at 10:16 AM

MAD for the ME. That is the goal.

Limerick on January 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Won’t work.

“If one permits an infidel to continue in his role as a corrupter of the earth, the infidel’s moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel, and this stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him.”
– Ayatollah Khomeini, speech on the day of Mohammed’s (piss be upon him) birth, 1984

Shy Guy on January 8, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Just wait until Bark orders gun confiscation, not only will Iran be cheered but China too.

Know these effers by their friends and supporters.

Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 10:17 AM

how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?

Well, we could increase taxes and print more money, sending it all to our new buddies in Tehran. But they have to promise not to use it for evil. That always works. /s

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Hagel’s ideas that the terrorist animals of Hamas should be treated as co-equals with the Israeli government and his calls for a return to the 1968 borders are just two reasons why the Senate should vote down this idiot. This is clearly about sending the message to Barak Hussein Obama’s Muslim friends about the lesson of “flexibility.” And American Jews share some of the blame in overwhelmingly supporting Obama’s second term despite the obvious signs. Message to the tribe: Your chickens have come home to roost. Hope the free contraception for sluts was worth losing the Jewish homeland to the Muslim animals that want to drive Jews into the sea.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Let’s hope it does signal practical changes. It’s time to end our warfare, including sanctions, and time for diplomacy.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Sounds like the little mermaid, “Jews in the sea, Jews in the sea”

tomas on January 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Why is it ok, and even expected of a conservative, to be skeptical of government, yet it comes to foreign policy, skepticism is nowhere to be found. Instead it’s rah-rah-rah for the War Party.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Diplomacy is a two-way street. Iran wants no part of it.

nobar on January 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM

There’s a saying, “the threat is stronger than the execution”. This is especially true for military might. And we have Hagel, who such as in the case of Iran would rather not leave open the option of military force against their nuclear program, doesn’t that neuter the influence of our military? If we maintain “peace through strength”, what results from an unwillingness to keep the use of force as an option? A more unstable world, that’s what.

Obama, a citizen of the world, who thinks all countries are equally exceptional, and believes the history of the exercise of Western might is a history of evil, has found someone like-minded in Hagel. They can sit around the Oval Office in those ugly earth-tone beanbag chairs and exchange stories about evil Western power, Hagel talking about Vietnam, Obama talking about his daddy and granddad living under British rule in colonial Kenya.

Paul-Cincy on January 8, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Not surprising coming from an Iranian government that denies that the Holocaust ever happened.

sentinelrules on January 8, 2013 at 10:34 AM

We have Allies Dante.

Why do dems hate republicans worse than terrorists?

tomas on January 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM

If our enemies love him, that tells you all you need to know.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Why is it ok, and even expected of a conservative, to be skeptical of government, yet it comes to foreign policy, skepticism is nowhere to be found. Instead it’s rah-rah-rah for the War Party.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Because a knife is a knife. Imagining it is a loofa sponge isn’t exactly facing the facts.

Limerick on January 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Here’s the question Hagel’s record poses for Obama after nominating this fringe voice on security: If sanctions are unacceptable and a military response is “not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” then how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?

*waves hand frantically* Ooh, ooh – I know!!
.
.
.
.
.
They neither expect nor intend to.

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM

IOW: Iran: Message received.

Resist We Much on January 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM

It doesn’t occur to you that maybe there is evil in the world, does it? There’s a reason for the support of defense and war.

nobar on January 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Let’s hope it does signal practical changes. It’s time to end our warfare, including sanctions, and time for diplomacy.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Hey, Mr. Chamberlain – long time no see! How ya doin’, Neville?

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Why is it ok, and even expected of a conservative, to be skeptical of government, yet it comes to foreign policy, skepticism is nowhere to be found. Instead it’s rah-rah-rah for the War Party.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Well, I am skeptical of Obama’s foreign policy.

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Because a knife is a knife. Imagining it is a loofa sponge isn’t exactly facing the facts.

Limerick on January 8, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Sounds like Brave New World hypnopaedia; no thought behind that statement at all.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:40 AM

It doesn’t occur to you that maybe there is evil in the world, does it? There’s a reason for the support of defense and war.

nobar on January 8, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Of course there’s evil in the world, but this is just a red herring to get away from my point. It is ok to be skeptical of spending. It is ok to be skeptical of farm subsidies. It is ok to be skeptical of every other government policy. Yet when it comes to foreign policy, conservatives are lockstep, thinking that any criticism of foreign policy is a criticism against the military and against America.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Kerry, Brennan and Hagel. Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest.
Obama couldn’t be doing a better job if he was trying to destroy America.

Basilsbest on January 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM

then how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?

A strongly worded letter should do the trick because those animals are so thoughtful and level-headed.

It’s the U.S. who are such meanies and inflexible tyrants.

tru2tx on January 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Sounds like Brave New World hypnopaedia; no thought behind that statement at all.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:40 AM

None you are able to discern, anyway. Your statement describes your own statement quite nicely.

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Yet when it comes to foreign policy, conservatives are lockstep, thinking that any criticism of foreign policy is a criticism against the military and against America.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Peace through strength. You against peace?

Paul-Cincy on January 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM

skepticism is nowhere to be found

Wait, who is not being skeptical of the Obama Administration’s policies?

There’s all kinds of skepticism of what they’re doing especially with this nomination.

It sure seems to me that folks on your side of this are uncritically accepting this nomination.

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Have you considered that Obama doesn’t really want Hagel as his SecDef? Perhaps he has someone else in mind altogether, and he’s just throwing Hagel out so that the Reps can spend some time, money and political capital tearing apart one of their own (theoretically), further fueling the “party of no” meme, even as Obama says lofty things in his inaugural about transcending differences.

Then two weeks and 20 million Republican dollars later, when you guys are done trashing Hagel, Obama sadly withdraws the nomination and puts forward his real choice; someone who will be, at that point, politically impossible to oppose seriously, because, hey, someone has to run the DoD, and the GOP will need to look constructive.

Just a thought.

Time Lord on January 8, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Basilsbest on January 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Not destroy. “Radically change”.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Sivis pacem, para bellum

Scott H on January 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Peace through strength. You against peace?

Paul-Cincy on January 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM

That’s not you achieve peace.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Sounds like the little mermaid, “Jews in the sea, Jews in the sea”

tomas on January 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Obviously you’re referring to this.

Shy Guy on January 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Yet when it comes to foreign policy, conservatives are lockstep, thinking that any criticism of foreign policy is a criticism against the military and against America.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:42 AM

For individuals to be in lockstep requires unity of purpose. Conservatives can never be united in purpose, only having common interests and acting upon them. As for the “lack of criticism”, I will refer you to a point I made about you last year. I called you a devout, and like all devouts, they don’t forgive. Was there more unity in the past? Yes. Are you going to acknowledge that that has changed? I suspect not.

nobar on January 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Let’s say the US adopts towards the Middle East the Paulian view of foreign policy.

What do the proponents of such an policy think will happen?

Do you think the Islamic world will suddenly love the US? Will the dangers to us posed by the Islamists disappear? Will we save all kinds of money and reduce our debt?

What exactly will happen?

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Wait, who is not being skeptical of the Obama Administration’s policies?

There’s all kinds of skepticism of what they’re doing especially with this nomination.

It sure seems to me that folks on your side of this are uncritically accepting this nomination.

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 10:46 AM

I didn’t say anything about Obama because it’s not about Obama. This interventionist, warring foreign policy has been going on for decades, almost a century, but really full steam for the past 50 to 60 years. Obama is just the latest steward of it. Calling Iran a long-time antagonist is ridiculous given the fact that the CIA was behind a coup that overthrew their elected leader, and then propped up a dictator, then gave aid and harbor to the dictator, then armed its enemy in a war … followed by sanctions, covert warfare, open discussion of bombing a sovereign nation.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Maybe with some luck the airstream and wind currents will be in our favor when Iran drops the bomb on Israel.

docflash on January 8, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Let’s say the US adopts towards the Middle East the Paulian view of foreign policy.

What do the proponents of such an policy think will happen?

Do you think the Islamic world will suddenly love the US? Will the dangers to us posed by the Islamists disappear? Will we save all kinds of money and reduce our debt?

What exactly will happen?

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 10:52 AM

No one is suggesting that the ME or the Islamic world or anyone will suddenly love us. That’s a straw man. What is being suggested and advocated is that we cease intervening in the affairs of foreign nations and their entanglements and build up our military at home where it belongs.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:53 AM

So, you’re saying that the Iranian Hostage Crisis was America’s fault.

You are pathetic.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Sivis pacem, para bellum

Scott H on January 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Quit with the Chinese, we speak American here.

Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Dadgummit, Bishop. I had a mouthful of Diet Coke when you did that.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM

But yeah, I pretty much agree that intervening anywhere in the world is a stupid idea. Can you imagine actually having democratic allies or supporting people who desire to throw off the yoke of oppression, that is not what America stands for.

Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

:)

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

This interventionist, warring foreign policy has been going on for decades, almost a century, but really full steam for the past 50 to 60 years

We’ve intervened militarily in two countries over the past 30 years. Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are at war with no country. We are at war with and against an ideology.

The problem with your analysis is that you assign all blame to this conflicts to the US and the US alone. None of these conflicts or interventions have anything to do with the other parties. No, it’s solely because of the US.

Is the US completely innocent? Of course not. Are completely guilty?

“Intervening in the affairs”. What does that mean? We shouldn’t try to influence over countries policies towards us?

Are we?

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Terrorist muslim regimes are THRILLED by obama’s choice of Hagel for defense and Brennan for CIA, because both are islam-pandering enemies of America.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/jihad-denialist-nominated-to-head-cia/

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/01/07/obamas-hard-on-israel-soft-on-terrorism-trifecta-is-complete/

Pork-Chop on January 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM

We’ve intervened militarily in two countries over the past 30 years. Iraq and Afghanistan.

Correction. I forgot about Bosnia under Clinton.

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Perhaps now, finally, we can create precious peace wherein the goats of the infidels and the goats of the Muslims can nurse together — not in the same pen, which would be wicked — but on the same planet, separated by water, as long as the appropriate submissions are achieved — and our he-goats and she-goats might pull from the teats of peace the wholesome milk of prosperity.

Not Zionist, non-entity goats of course.

Axe on January 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM

So, you’re saying that the Iranian Hostage Crisis was America’s fault.

You are pathetic.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM

I didn’t say that at all. Why are you always intellectually dishonest? The hostage crisis was in direct response to our giving the toppled Shah harbor.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I see that an anti-semitic Paulian has infiltrated this thread. Beyond pathetic. Go and live in Israel. And then the Gulf states. I have. I know. The armchair i**ots sound absolutely stupid to me.

tommy71 on January 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Correction. I forgot about Bosnia under Clinton.

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Grenada under Reagan.

Shy Guy on January 8, 2013 at 11:12 AM

We’ve intervened militarily in two countries over the past 30 years. Iraq and Afghanistan.

Correction. I forgot about Bosnia under Clinton.

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Uh, you forgot Libya and Yemen under dear leader.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-notifies-congress-of-troops-deployed-to-libya-and-yemen/

Pork-Chop on January 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM

So, you’re saying that the Iranian Hostage Crisis was America’s fault.
You are pathetic.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM
I didn’t say that at all. Why are you always intellectually dishonest? The hostage crisis was in direct response to our giving the toppled Shah harbor.Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Not intellectually dishonest at all.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Grenada under Reagan.

Shy Guy on January 8, 2013 at 11:12 AM

I can think of more than a few “bomby things” we’ve been involved in, and more if you open it up to lighting fuses in the background, but I don’t want to be misunderstood as arguing with SteveMG’s main point. :)

Axe on January 8, 2013 at 11:17 AM

We’ve intervened militarily in two countries over the past 30 years. Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are at war with no country. We are at war with and against an ideology.

The problem with your analysis is that you assign all blame to this conflicts to the US and the US alone. None of these conflicts or interventions have anything to do with the other parties. No, it’s solely because of the US.

Is the US completely innocent? Of course not. Are completely guilty?

“Intervening in the affairs”. What does that mean? We shouldn’t try to influence over countries policies towards us?

Are we?

SteveMG on January 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM

We’ve intervened in far more countries and their affairs than just Iraq and Afghanistan and Bosnia over the past 30 years, and yes, that includes militarily.

What do you think intervening in affairs means? Seems self-evident to me. It means getting involved in matters that have nothing to do with us. Iran – Iraq war, for example. The Soviets invading Afghanistan, for example. Libya. Korea. Viet Nam. Kuwait. Iran. Israel.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:17 AM

But yeah, I pretty much agree that intervening anywhere in the world is a stupid idea. Can you imagine actually having democratic allies or supporting people who desire to throw off the yoke of oppression, that is not what America stands for.

Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Bishop is for the seizure of your wealth by the State and redistributing it to foreign people and foreign governments, as well as sending his fellow Americans to die in foreign war zones that have nothing to do with America, and trying to present it as the moral high ground by way of sarcasm.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Not intellectually dishonest at all.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Saying that the hostage crisis was in response to our harboring an overthrown dictator does not make the assault on the embassy and the force used against its people our fault. We are not to blame for those actions, but to foolishly think that our interventionism does not have negative consequences is just that: foolish.

link

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM

No one is suggesting that the ME or the Islamic world or anyone will suddenly love us. That’s a straw man. What is being suggested and advocated is that we cease intervening in the affairs of foreign nations and their entanglements and build up our military at home where it belongs.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Morbidly stupid. You claim to not be an isolationist but your comments prove you are. It is a global economy and our interest must be protected.

I am critical of our foreign policy. Our foreign policy decisions are made for political purposes now, not for our nations well being.

Vince on January 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Grenada under Reagan.

Shy Guy on January 8, 2013 at 11:12 AM

And Lebanon

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Just a thought.

Time Lord on January 8, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Just a hypothetical? Do you have a particular who in mind? No pun intended. :)

Axe on January 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I didn’t say that at all. Why are you always intellectually dishonest? The hostage crisis was in direct response to our giving the toppled Shah harbor.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM

So granting asylum to a foreign national is somehow “interfering” and the taking of hostages was justified? Is that your point here?

If it is, then you should be comforted to know that your president agrees with you. The informant that gave up bin laden’s location asked for asylum for fear of his life. Your president denied that request. I wonder where that guy is now… I wonder where his family is.

Obama did, however, assasinate bin laden, which was a perfect example of… non-interference? Have I got that right?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM

You dance well.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Morbidly stupid. You claim to not be an isolationist but your comments prove you are. It is a global economy and our interest must be protected.

I am critical of our foreign policy. Our foreign policy decisions are made for political purposes now, not for our nations well being.

Vince on January 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM

If I were an isolationist, then I wouldn’t be in favor of diplomatic relations and trade between America and other nations. I am for diplomatic relations and trade with other nations. I do not believe it is moral to intervene in the affairs of nations.

“Our interest must be protected.”

Nice regurgitated propaganda, and the words that enable an empire and tyranny.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:30 AM

So granting asylum to a foreign national is somehow “interfering” and the taking of hostages was justified? Is that your point here?

If it is, then you should be comforted to know that your president agrees with you. The informant that gave up bin laden’s location asked for asylum for fear of his life. Your president denied that request. I wonder where that guy is now… I wonder where his family is.

Obama did, however, assasinate bin laden, which was a perfect example of… non-interference? Have I got that right?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM

No. America’s involvement regarding the Shah didn’t just start with giving him harbor. And no, I’ve never said that taking hostages was justified. It wasn’t justified, but it didn’t occur in a vacuum, either.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Vince on January 8, 2013 at 11:28 AM

By the way, “global economy” has been drilled into your head, yet you don’t realize the implications: it is a term of collectivism, a term that enables bodies such as the UN, the European Union, the IMF, etc. It is imperialism. It is Keynesian.

There is no global economy.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Its alarming that the antisemites think that they know best. Really idiotic. Reminds me of Hitler. I’ve lived in the ME most of my life. I know ground realities. Please Paulians, you have zero knowledge, just theories. So STFU.

tommy71 on January 8, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Good that you’re engaging, Paulian. Now counter my comments, and I’ll take you apart.

tommy71 on January 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM

No. America’s involvement regarding the Shah didn’t just start with giving him harbor. And no, I’ve never said that taking hostages was justified. It wasn’t justified, but it didn’t occur in a vacuum, either.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:32 AM

You are the one who said the hostages were taken because we gave the shah harbor, but now that isn’t the reason?

So the taking of hostages was not justified, but it didn’t happen in a vacuum? So the U.S. was responsible for the hostage-taking, or not?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Yet when it comes to foreign policy, conservatives are lockstep, thinking that any criticism of foreign policy is a criticism against the military and against America.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Um, no… ? I see a great number of conservatives expressing criticism of foreign policy, and it has nothing to do with ‘against the military and against America’, it’s criticism of the foreign policy in question.

Did you mispeak, or do you really not see criticism of foreign policy occuring by conservatives, and not directed as a negative against either military or America – and in this very thread?

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Nice regurgitated propaganda…

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:30 AM

This describes you to a T. I am not the one who has been brainwashed. Do you know Bill Ayers, Anonymous? Who are your role models?

Vince on January 8, 2013 at 11:54 AM

You are the one who said the hostages were taken because we gave the shah harbor, but now that isn’t the reason?

So the taking of hostages was not justified, but it didn’t happen in a vacuum? So the U.S. was responsible for the hostage-taking, or not?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 11:50 AM

I didn’t say it wasn’t the reason; I said it wasn’t justified. No, the American government was not responsible for the hostage-taking. The people who attacked the embassy were responsible for that. That does not mean that it wasn’t a reaction to Carter and his administration giving harbor to the Shah. It was. If I called you a name, and you respond by shooting me, I am not responsible for your shooting me, but I cannot be surprised that my actions had negative consequences.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Jeez, Dante is a coward. Lol. No surprise. When it comes to someone whos lived in the ME extensively, the armchair Paulians chicken out. Lol.

tommy71 on January 8, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Um, no… ? I see a great number of conservatives expressing criticism of foreign policy, and it has nothing to do with ‘against the military and against America’, it’s criticism of the foreign policy in question.

Did you mispeak, or do you really not see criticism of foreign policy occuring by conservatives, and not directed as a negative against either military or America – and in this very thread?

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism? Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Just one.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Just one.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I couldn’t even tell you Obama’s actual policy toward Iran.

Axe on January 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM

I couldn’t even tell you Obama’s actual policy toward Iran.

Axe on January 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM

link

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM

*Or anywhere else, for that matter. It seems psychotic. Airplanes landing in one airfield with food while the airfield across town is being bombed. Metaphorically speaking.

Axe on January 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM

link

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM

:(

Put another way, I don’t think even he knows what he’s doing. He wants to cuddle with prickly things that won’t cuddle.

Axe on January 8, 2013 at 12:20 PM

. . . out of the conversation til moderation moderates.

Axe on January 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism? Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Just one.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Forgive me. I actually work for a living so I’m having difficulty keeping up with the conversation.

You spoke a lot about interventionalism in the general before and you received plenty of responses proving there are conservatives who don’t always support interventionalism.

Is it just down to Iran now?

If so, I would like to know who is to blame for the 444 days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. So, the taking of hostages was the hostage-takers fault, but they can’t really be blamed because we gave them money, or because we insulted them? Isn’t it really America’s fault? Or was it nobody’s fault because it is really America’s fault but you don’t want to say it because you are not allowed to divulge your programmed parameters in the presence of the unwashed?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 12:30 PM

While I asked them of someone else, I see you didn’t even attempt to answer the challenge, which was two-part. You just repeated the same claim Midas made.

So go ahead: Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism. Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:36 PM

American Conservatives are anti-terrorism and pro-Israel. We’re not going to be against anything that is done to a bunch of American-hating barbarians.

But…you already knew that…didn’t you, Paulian?

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 12:40 PM

I couldn’t even tell you Obama’s actual policy toward Iran.

Axe on January 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM

That is so easy:

1. Whatever strengthens the Muslim Brotherhood is GOOD.

2. Whatever hurts America’s oil intererest there and in surrounding areas: GOOD

3. Whatever looks like it might lead to the destruction of Israel: DOUBLE PLUS GOOD.

See? Really not all that difficult.

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 12:43 PM

So go ahead: Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism. Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:36 PM

I am. I also criticize America’s actions in Afghanistan. We aren’t doing enough. I served in Vietnam and I criticized our actions there. We didn’t do enough.

Again, who are your role models?

Vince on January 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

That is so easy:

1. Whatever strengthens the Muslim Brotherhood is GOOD.

2. Whatever hurts America’s oil intererest there and in surrounding areas: GOOD

3. Whatever looks like it might lead to the destruction of Israel: DOUBLE PLUS GOOD.

See? Really not all that difficult.

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Reality to the contrary, of course. But interesting that you mention Iran’s oil as being “America’s oil interest”.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

‘Strangely Cheered’?! There’s nothing ‘strange’ about it — Iran knows Hagel is pro-Iranian & has opposed every sanction opposed against them. Iran also knows this selection by Obama signals he has no b@lls, no backbone, & no intention of taking any SERIOUS action to prevent Iran, the world’s leading exporter of terrorism, their own nuclear material / weapons!

easyt65 on January 8, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I am. I also criticize America’s actions in Afghanistan. We aren’t doing enough. I served in Vietnam and I criticized our actions there. We didn’t do enough.

Again, who are your role models?

Vince on January 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

You aren’t criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism by calling for more interventionsim.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:47 PM

You aren’t criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism by calling for more interventionsim.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:47 PM

No I’m not. I am criticizing the current policy of interventionism as half-a$$ed.

Vince on January 8, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism? Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Just one.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Dude, other than the fact that you keep dancing and moving the goalposts like a mind-numbed lib… are you f*cking serious? Conservatives have been strongly objecting to the lack of seriousness with which this administration has been taking Iran for, um, a few years now, m’kay? How about Syria – linked to Iran – where HC was schmoozing Assad, and being vocally rebuffed by conservatives – you know, just before he started slaughtering his civilians.

Man, wtf is wrong with you? You staked claims and got your ass handed to you repeatedly, but you keep narrowing the scope and doubling down – and STILL getting your ass handed to you, because you’re premise is beyond f*cked in the head. Wake the f*ck up, please.

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Reality to the contrary, of course.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Reality is chewing on your a$$, but you apparently don’t know it.

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM

So go ahead: Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism. Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:36 PM

1. I point to me as one who is against Obama’s interventionalist foreign policies. I think it was illegal and short-sighted to use American assets to topple the evil, yet stable government to insert a Muslim Brotherhood dictator in Libya.

2. I do hereby criticize the current U.S. policy in Iran as being completely devoid of any value what-so-ever. Hoping that savages will act like honorable men just because you treat them that way is just asking to end up in a soup.

There. I said it. Happy now?

The only thing I care about in the Middle East is respect for Israel’s right to exist. Iran is onboard with that, right?

P.S.

About those hostages… Isn’t it really America’s fault for treating a cur like a gentleman? And what came next after the shah fell? Nothing but the tolerence, peace, love and understanding of a loving open-minded theocracy of the religion of peace.

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Dude, other than the fact that you keep dancing and moving the goalposts like a mind-numbed lib… are you f*cking serious? Conservatives have been strongly objecting to the lack of seriousness with which this administration has been taking Iran for, um, a few years now, m’kay? How about Syria – linked to Iran – where HC was schmoozing Assad, and being vocally rebuffed by conservatives – you know, just before he started slaughtering his civilians.

Man, wtf is wrong with you? You staked claims and got your ass handed to you repeatedly, but you keep narrowing the scope and doubling down – and STILL getting your ass handed to you, because you’re premise is beyond f*cked in the head. Wake the f*ck up, please.

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Moving the goalposts? Narrowing the scope?

Here is your post:

Um, no… ? I see a great number of conservatives expressing criticism of foreign policy, and it has nothing to do with ‘against the military and against America’, it’s criticism of the foreign policy in question.

Did you mispeak, or do you really not see criticism of foreign policy occuring by conservatives, and not directed as a negative against either military or America – and in this very thread?

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I’ll repeat: Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism. Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Just one.

And again, since you seem to have missed it the first time:

I didn’t say anything about Obama because it’s not about Obama. This interventionist, warring foreign policy has been going on for decades, almost a century, but really full steam for the past 50 to 60 years. Obama is just the latest steward of it.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM

You are oblivious to your own Rhetorical Games, aren’t you?

Classic.

kingsjester on January 8, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Abbot and Costello, “whose on first?”

Who are your role models?

Vince on January 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM

1. I point to me as one who is against Obama’s interventionalist foreign policies. I think it was illegal and short-sighted to use American assets to topple the evil, yet stable government to insert a Muslim Brotherhood dictator in Libya.

2. I do hereby criticize the current U.S. policy in Iran as being completely devoid of any value what-so-ever. Hoping that savages will act like honorable men just because you treat them that way is just asking to end up in a soup.

There. I said it. Happy now?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM

That would be the first time someone in this thread has said they are against interventionism. Well, that wasn’t exacly a statement of being against interventionism, just that the “current foreign policy” (which has been the same foreign policy for the past 30+ years) is devoid of value, and that you are against it when Obama does it.

So we’re back to square one: you said there were “plenty of responses proving there are conservatives who don’t always support interventionalism.”

Point to one.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Reality to the contrary, of course. But interesting that you mention Iran’s oil as being “America’s oil interest”.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Whoa! You really got me there!

No. You didn’t.

America is interested in oil in Iran and plenty of other places. I have interests in many companies. What is so interesting about a person company or country having interest? Oh, wait… Is the word “interest” one of those progressive code words? What does it mean? Can you tell me or is a trait secret?

Where has my position deviated from reality, or is that a “if you don’t know, l’m not gonna tell you *insert smirk here* ” sort of thing?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM

And it just so happens he is on the board of a corporation, Deutsch Bank, which has investments in Iran, and he was at a J Street fundraisers, the knaves that want to isolate Israel, that’s just a coincidences

narciso on January 8, 2013 at 1:23 PM

I know the next move, is bring up the Mossadegh card, well he was clearly on the way out in ’53, his only support was among the Tudeh,
the bazaari (merchants) and the mullahs were against him, so AJAX prevailed, in fact Khomeini’s mentor Kashani, was a leader in the ouster,

narciso on January 8, 2013 at 1:31 PM

In Israel they are a worried about a few things Hagel did and said in his career, but his voting history has been more or less consistently pro-Israel.

The real worry in Israel is that Israel is being turned into the football in the political football game in the US. Israelis don’t want to be the reason the 2 political parties fight with each other.

As for myself, I think Obama knew everything about Hagel and nominated him anyway. Given that Iran is the biggest project for the incoming SecDef, Obama tapped Hagel to signal the Iranians and Israelis about his intentions with respect to Iran. Everything else on the SecDef’s to do list is almost irrelevant and is just a matter of administration and logistics.

It worries me greatly that Obama picked Hagel of all people. Not because he will be anti-Israel, but he will be anti-stopping-Iran-at-all-costs.

AlexB on January 8, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2