Hagel on Israel’s Nukes – The issue that cannot be mentioned

The Hagel nomination should have been settled by now.  The only reason it hasn’t is serious opposition by Senators who some regard as in the hip pocet of the pro Israel Lobby.  While AIPAC has not taken a position, other groups and ad hoc creations have gone after Hagel.  Free thinkers are always subject to questions and a free thinker who questions a reflexive policy on supporting anything the most conservtive elements in Israwl want is dangerous.

Voltaire.net just posted a 2008 video that may show the real fear his approval generates.  In this video, Hagel does two things.  First he acknowledges that Israel has nuclear weapons.  That’s the fact that can’t be mentioned in United States politics, at least if you want to be in the main stream.  Then, he outlines this “very real” scenario as a danger.  The conclusion is, no attacks on Iran, work for peace.

Here is the transcript quotation that may be the source of the trouble.  This was recorded on a book tour Hagel did in 2008

“I’ll give you a scenario that’s very real. If Israel gets backed up enough into a corner and Israel uses a tactical theater nuclear weapon, you want to talk about seeing some things unravel in the world. The United States shouldn’t even be thinking about options of bombing Iran or anybody else. I mean we got our hands full right now. And we’re in such a hell of a mess.”  From Voltaire.net, February 11, 2013

No good act goes unpunished in American politics.  This simple statement of reality is one of them, I suspect.

Hagel should  be approved immediately. For his political oppoents, the only thing worse than his approval would be a rejection of the nomination. Reap the wind, sow the whirlwind as the saying goes.  There would be no duck and cover exercise that would stop the storm over this.

This post was read 95 times.

About author View all posts

Michael Collins

DC area

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  • Not officially acknowledging Israel’s nuclear capability is not a marker of political mainstream status. It is an issue of official USG policy – that was the deal that was made decades ago.

    As to whether this makes him look like an adult, well the answer was frankly damned near incoherent. He was asked about a scenario in which Iran attacks Israel such that it poses existential threat – this answer, this is a sop that gives the AIPAC types a boner. The real answer (and one that would cause them the type of discontent this is mistakenly asserted to have caused) is “What is this existential threat of which you speak?” How the hell does Iran, at this point, pose an existential threat to Israel? Hizbullah? Existential? Please. WMD attacks from the Iranian homeland? With no device, let alone a miniaturized, mated, weaponized and deployed, deliverable warhead? How does that work?

Leave a Reply