Hagel: “In dealing with Iran, every option must be on the table,”

Hagel: “In dealing with Iran, every option must be on the table,” (RT).

There is "no daylight at all" between the US and Israel’s stances on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon, he said. But there could be a divergence in evaluating the timing of the threat from Tehran.

Hagel’s latest visit to Israel has exposed a widely-known secret that the Obama administration has reasons not to get drawn into a new conflict.

But the high status of the major US ally comes with the necessity to sugarcoat the bitter pill.

Hagel has arrived in Tel Aviv with two pieces of news: good and bad.

The good news is he brought a multi-billion-dollar arms package that will enable Israeli military with Osprey V-22 tilt-rotor transport aircrafts, air tankers and anti-radar missiles to eliminate enemy air defenses.

The supply of the newest American weapons to Israel is designed to show Tehran that a solution by force of the Iranian nuclear problem remains on the table.

"I don't think there's any question that's another very clear signal to Iran,” Hagel told reporters on Sunday.

The bad news is that despite Hagel saying the US and Israel regard the nuclear threat from Iran "exactly the same", there is a difference between Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s perception of the timing and necessity to attack.

“When you back down into the specifics of the timing of when and if Iran decides to pursue a nuclear weapon, there may well be some differences,” Hagel said.

On his first visit to Israel as Pentagon chief, Chuck Hagel delivered a message from the Obama administration that it is up to Israel to decide when to make a pre-emptively attack on Persians.
“Israel will make the decision that Israel must make to protect itself, to defend itself,” Hagel told reporters ahead of his Middle East voyage.

Which might as well mean that in case Israeli military action against Iran went wrong, direct US military assistance is not guaranteed.

“Iran is a threat — a real threat,” summed up Hagel, but pointed out that international economic sanctions have already become a tremendous pain for Tehran and that in turn would possibly influence the results of the Iran's presidential election in June. Therefore the implication of military force remains the last resort option.

It looks like Washington is paying its way out of a possible new slaughterhouse to evolve in the Middle East once PM Benjamin Netanyahu convinces Israeli generals to attack Iran at their own peril and risk.

Still, Hagel assured Tel Aviv that Israel's right of self-defense is not questioned.

“In dealing with Iran, every option must be on the table,” Hagel stressed in the interview given on an overnight flight to the Israeli capital. Hmmmm.......Hagel: “In dealing with Iran, every option must be on the table,” .....where have we heard that before?Read the full story here.

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.