by Yoram Ettinger
The U.S. Senate vote on
the nomination of John Brennan and Chuck Hagel to the positions of CIA
Director and Secretary of Defense, respectively, will shape U.S. power
projection and deterrence posture, global sanity, the war on Islamic
terrorism and America's determination to avert the wrath of a nuclear
Iran.
John Brennan presented
his position on Iran in The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science in July, 2008: ''A critical step toward improved
U.S.-Iranian relations would be for U.S. officials to cease public
Iran-bashing, a tactic that may have served short-term domestic
political interests but that has heretofore been wholly
counterproductive to U.S. strategic interests.''
Brennan believed that
Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, as reported in the U.S.
National Intelligence Estimate report in 2007. He criticized
then-President George W. Bush for refusing to ease pressure on Iran.
Brennan opined that “preventing Iran from making a nuclear weapon could
only be achieved through persuasion.”
On August 6, 2009,
Brennan presented his worldview on counter-terrorism in a speech titled
“A New Approach to Safeguarding Americans” at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies: “President [Barack Obama] does not describe
this [war on Islamic terrorism] as a ‘war on terrorism.’ That is because
‘terrorism’ is but a tactic... The President does not describe this as a
‘global war….’ It plays into the misleading and dangerous notion that
the U.S. is somehow in conflict with the rest of the world... Nor does
President Obama see this challenge as a fight against ‘Jihadists.’
Describing terrorists in this way – using a legitimate term, "Jihad,"
meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal –
risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately
seek…”
Brennan’s ideological
ambiguity/confusion towards Islamic terrorism – and his
misrepresentation of Jihad and ignoring the dominance of hate education
in the Muslim Middle East – could be transformed into operational
ambiguity/confusion in the battle against Islamic terrorism.
At the beginning of
Bill Clinton’s second term as president, Senator Richard Shelby placed a
“hold” on the nomination of Anthony Lake, then the National Security
Advisor, to head the CIA. Shelby succeeded to block the nomination,
contending that Lake was an ideologue, while a CIA director should excel
in management and operations.
According to a
Washington Post editorial from December 19, Brennan and Hagel approach
Iran in a similar manner: “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... Mr. Hagel
was similarly isolated in his views about Iran during his time in the
Senate. He repeatedly voted against sanctions, opposing even those aimed
at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was
orchestrating devastating bomb attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Mr.
Hagel argued that direct negotiations, rather than sanctions, were the
best means to alter Iran’s behavior.”
Hagel serves as a
co-Chairman of the Presidential Intelligence Advisory Board and a Senior
Director of the U.S./Middle East Project, promoting his worldview
at-large and on the Middle East in particular.
Hagel considers the
Palestinian issue to be the core cause of turbulence in the Middle East,
a root cause of anti-U.S. Islamic terrorism and the crown jewel of Arab
policy makers, irrespective of the seismic, stormy Arab Winter which
has erupted independent of the Palestinian issue, refuting such
oversimplified and misleading assumptions.
As senator, Hagel was –
along with Senator John Kerry – one of the few supporters of Hafez and
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Capitol Hill. In October, 2009,
Hagel stated: “I believe there is a real possibility of a shift in
Syria’s strategic thinking and policies... If we can convince Damascus
to pause and re-consider its positions and support regarding Iran,
Hezbollah, Hamas and radical Palestinian groups, we will have made
progress for the entire Middle East, Israel, and the United States.
Syria wants to talk – at the highest levels – and everything is on the
table... The next bi-lateral peace treaty for Israel is with Syria.”
As Chairman of the
Atlantic Council, Hagel has subscribed to the centrality of the U.N. –
which is not the home court for U.S. interests – in the conduct of
international relations. He does not believe in U.S. exceptionalism in
the international arena and espouses the superiority of multilateralism
over unilateral, independent U.S. national security measures.
Both Brennan and Hagel
are outside the American mainstream on crucial national security issues.
What does that portend for global stability and U.S. national security?
Yoram Ettinger
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3198
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment