Obama's Favorite Nominee Hagel: US Needs to 'Reverse Optics' in Relationship With Israel.

Obama's Favorite Nominee Hagel: US Needs to 'Reverse Optics' in Relationship With Israel. (INN).The National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations recently published a recording of a speech given by former senator Chuck Hagel, President Barack Obama’s highly controversial nominee for secretary of defense, in which he said that the United States has to "reverse optics" in its relationship with the state of Israel.
In order to restore its credibility as an honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians, America has to “reverse optics” in its ties with the Jewish state, the former Republican senator from Nebraska said in 2007, as first reported by Breitbart.com.
"There's no question in the Arab-Israeli issue that Israel is a nation today as a result of the United States," he said, possibly referring to the decision by President Harry Truman to recognize the establishment of the State of Israel, as well as continued military, financial and diplomatic ties between the two countries.
While his remarks are not entirely clear, in context, it seems that Hagel was intending to reinforce perceptions of Israel as a client state of the United States, according to Breitbart.
It was recently revealed that Hagel made further staggering accusations against Israel, alleging that the Jewish state is keeping the “Palestinians caged up like animals.”
The highly controversial nominee does not elaborate on the claim or explain how he believes Israel is keeping “Palestinians caged up like animals,” according to the Journal Star report. The comment is, however, consistent with his long anti-Israel and anti-Jewish record.
The Senate Armed Services Committee postponed a panel vote that was expected to take place Thursday on the contentious nomination after Republicans demanded that he release additional financial information, including details regarding compensation for speeches he delivered since leaving Capitol Hill.Hmmm.....A 'man' is known by the company he keeps.Read the full story here.

One of the donors of Obama's favorite 'nominee' Hagel is 'Friends of Hamas'?

One of the donors of Obama's favorite 'nominee' Hagel is 'Friends of Hamas'? HT: IsraelMatzav.Well, I'm shocked. Just totally shocked. Breitbart.com is reporting that the reason that Chuck Hagel doesn't want to disclose his foreign donor list is that one of the donors is 'Friends of Hamas.' And when a White House spokesperson was asked to comment, they hung up the phone without saying a word.

On Thursday, Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.”

... Called for comment and reached via telephone, Associate Communications Director at the White House Eric Schultz identified himself, heard the question, was silent for several seconds, and then hung up the phone immediately without comment. Called back via the White House switchboard, Schultz’s phone rang through to his answering machine. Called on his cell phone, Schultz’s phone rang through to his answering machine.
And the Senate Democrats are going to vote to confirm this 'nominee'?Hmmmm....Remember : "2012 Democratic platform advocates talking to Hamas, a 'Palestinian' 'right of return' to 'Israel proper,' 1949 armistice lines and a capital where?" Read the full story here.

Related: Dem platform and Obama still recognize Hamas.

Think tank Hagel chairs issued report saying Iran and U.S. are ‘natural partners’

Think tank Hagel chairs issued report saying Iran and U.S. are ‘natural partners’.(FB).

The Washington think tank overseen by President Obama’s defense secretary-designate predicts that Iran one day will be a “natural partner” for the United States and could possess nuclear weapons.

It also puts the onus on Israel to make peace with Palestinians, many of whom are governed by Hamas, an Iran-backed terrorist group bent on the destruction of the Jewish state.
The views are contained in a major policy paper by the Atlantic Council, for which former Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska serves as chairman. The paper shows the foreign policy culture from which Mr. Hagel emerges to face Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearings.
The paper also may explain the underpinnings for Mr. Hagel’s dovish views on Iran for which he will receive close scrutiny by fellow Republicans.
Mr. Obama on Monday presented Mr. Hagel as the nominee to replace Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta. Mr. Hagel has taken a far less hawkish stance than Mr. Panetta, who has vowed that Tehran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and talks of a military option to stop the regime.
Iran's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday approved Mr. Hagel’s nomination, saying it hopes his appointment as Pentagon chief would improve relations between the U.S. and the Islamic republic.
Mr. Hagel upbraided President George W. Bush for not offering unconditional talks with Iran’s hard-line Islamic leaders.

He does not emphasize a military option to counter Iran’s nuclear program, and he has suggested that Iran one day will own atomic weapons.

In December, the Atlantic Council issued the major position paper — part advice to Mr. Obama in his second term, part vision for the world in the next 17 years.
Mr. Hagel did not write “Envisioning 2030: U.S. Strategy for a Post-Western World,” but it corresponds with his and the Atlantic Council’s efforts to seek global cooperation, not confrontation.
The paper predicts that Iranian hard-liners will be unable to insulate the population from democratic movements in Egypt, Tunisia and other neighboring states.
“It is difficult to envision an already globalized Iranian public not being inspired by regional examples of popular democratic governance,” the Atlantic Council says.
“For U.S. strategy, Iran should be viewed as a potential natural partner in the region. … A post-mullah dominated government shedding Shia [Muslim] ideology could easily return to being a net contributor to stability by 2030.”
The report explains that if a decision were made to normalize relations, “the process of substantially easing sanctions could be accomplished fairly rapidly.” Sanctions “would need to be removed in order to promote normal U.S.-Iran commerce, facilitate U.S. and foreign investment in Iran, to permit U.S. foreign assistance to Iran, and to permit U.S. support for unrestricted international lending to Iran.”
A further necessary step would be Iran’s “removal from the terrorism list,” a designation that triggers automatic sanctions under several different laws. Removal from the list would allow for a “substantial broadening of U.S. economic relations with Iran.”

Katzman argues that Iran would need to receive substantial international investment. The first step would be opening up Iran to receive U.S. foreign aid.
“Congress would need to also delete Iran from a list of countries barred from U.S. assistance under successive foreign aid appropriations laws,” writes Katzman. “Congress could do so when it acts on foreign aid appropriations for any subsequent fiscal year by simply omitting Iran from the list of countries.”
Katzman notes that many of the necessary actions could be done unilaterally. He writes that the administration would have to issue an executive order “lifting the U.S. ban on trade with and investment in Iran,” noting that the “administration has substantial discretion to take this step.”
The president could also use his post to “lobby other governments to approve international loans to Iran for the purpose of fostering its economic development,” the report states.
Additionally, Katzman writes that the president could restore full diplomatic relations with Iran and that Congress could do little about it.
“The president has near total discretion on how to proceed in restoring diplomatic relations, if there were a decision to do so,” the report states. “Congressional ability to block such steps appears to be limited. Attempts by Congress to legislatively prevent a president from establishing full diplomatic relations with any country, including Iran, are likely to falter on constitutional grounds.”Read the full story here.