Abraham Ben-Zvi
It has been over seven
decades since the policy of appeasement pursued by Western democracies
in their dealings with the evil Nazi empire crashed and burned. Now, as
we begin 2013, we come away with the impression that the man who is in
line to serve as the Obama administration’s next defense secretary,
former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, harbors political and diplomatic
philosophies that are deeply entrenched in those dark days of myopic
appeasement.
Judging from numerous
past statements, Hagel clearly believes that the key to ensuring global
and regional stability is adopting a soft policy toward any radical
entity working to fundamentally change the rules of the game and
threaten the prevailing world order, including Iran. According to the
man who has been tapped as the next Pentagon chief, the Tehran regime’s
moderation is contingent upon shelving the military option as a viable
alternative in neutralizing the Iranian nuclear threat.
As Hagel sees it,
instead of saber-rattling and tougher sanctions, American diplomacy will
offer a package of confidence-building measures in the form of economic
and political incentives, which would then ensure regional stability
while removing the horrifying specter of a nuclear Iran, which would
undoubtedly cast a menacing cloud over the entire Middle East.
Yes, Hagel does specify
a limit to his conciliatory, appeasing approach. He is careful to note
that in the event of a direct, immediate threat on U.S. national
security interests, there remain options of deterrence, containment,
intervention, and even the use of force, which Hagel believes should be
the last alternative.
Nonetheless, these are
scenarios that have little chance of taking place in the long term. The
U.S. would likely call upon the application of force in the event of a
very serious threat (particularly from China) to the global balance of
power and vital American interests. If, however, one takes into account
the litany of short-term, immediate threats, Hagel’s philosophy posits
that offering carrots and incentives is far more preferable than
threatening with the sticks of sanctions and punishment (without
mentioning the use of military force).
At Hagel’s core, the
strategy of appeasement is a precondition for attaining stability. If
and when this sought-after stability is attained, then the American
hegemon could realize its dream of hunkering down in its own
isolationism, just as the designate secretary of defense planned it.
This would enable the U.S. to relieve itself of the arduous burden that
comes with managing the complexities inherent in the international
system. On a related note, it is worth recalling that Hagel, in this
context, is an enthusiastic supporter of massively cutting the defense
budget.
A disturbing element
Given this belief
system, the elements of which are intertwined, it is easy to understand
the deep disdain that the former senator harbors for any country that he
perceives as putting obstacles before the realization of his vision.
Once Hagel came to the conclusion that Israel is primarily responsible
for the prolonged conflict in the Palestinian sphere and its destructive
regional ramifications, little doubt remained as to the cumulative
consequences of his statements as they relate to Israel.
Despite his
unconvincing denials from recent days — which are intended to soften the
stiff bipartisan opposition to his nomination that is expected in the
Senate — there is little doubt regarding Israel’s place on Hagel’s list
of priorities as reflected in his core values and belief system.
Irrespective of whether the topic at hand is the second intifada, the
Second Lebanon War or Operation Cast Lead, Israel is invariably
perceived by Hagel as a trigger-happy country that endangers regional
stability.
In echoing sentiments
that were often heard during the less-than-pleasant days of the 1950s,
Hagel believes that Israel is a clear strategic burden. In addition, he
feels that regional crises precipitated by Israel’s actions have dragged
U.S. governments into the Middle Eastern swamp against their will,
thereby sapping American resources while jeopardizing Washington’s ties
with regional allies.
Judging by the
worldview espoused by the former senator from Nebraska, Washington’s
traditional support for Jerusalem (which Hagel believes is based on the
threats and intimidation tactics employed by the powerful pro-Israel
lobby in the American capital) is a very bothersome element that has
complicated the task of forming a united, pan-Arab bloc that would be
closely allied with the West.
It seems that the
far-reaching concessions offered by Israel at Camp David in 2000 as well
as during peace negotiations in 2008 — which failed to convince the
Palestinian Authority to show more flexibility in laying down its
conditions for a final settlement — left no impression on the incoming
defense secretary’s attitude toward the Jewish State.
As such, Hagel remains
convinced that the State of Israel and its policies are the main source
of the chronic instability that has bedeviled the Middle East. In his
view, even today Israel and the talk surrounding the nuclear threat
increase the odds that the entire world (including the American giant)
could be dragged toward the precipice of a new, highly destructive
Iranian apocalypse.
Since this is a very
entrenched, crystallized set of positions and opinions, it would be a
mistake to toy with illusory notions regarding what we can expect from
the new top man at the Pentagon in the event that his nomination is
confirmed, irrespective of how much clout he wields in the
administration.
Gearing up for battle
Nonetheless, it is
reasonable to assume that the Hagel’s road to confirmation is bumpy. Not
only does nominating Hagel constitute a provocative move toward the
Republican opposition (many of whose members view their fellow
Republican as a wayward step-child), but it is also noteworthy since
Hagel’s positions significantly undermine the traditional base of
support for Israel, which has enjoyed tremendous backing on Capitol Hill
for decades.
The fact that Hagel has
yet to be quoted expressing even minor acknowledgement of the cultural,
ideological, and historical ties that are shared between the two allies
could serve as the key factor that thwarts his nomination. The battle
for Hagel’s political future has begun.
While Hagel’s
bread-and-butter ideology is rooted in matters of strategic and
diplomatic importance, the Israeli aspect of this confirmation battle
holds special importance, particularly because it is hard to find
central players in the current administration (including in the White
House) that will make a special effort to balance the hostile views that
Hagel harbors toward Israel. This stands in stark contrast to the
two-term presidency of Ronald Reagan.
During that period,
then-Pentagon chief Caspar Weinberger consistently demonstrated
hostility toward Israel. In contrast, however, the governments of
Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir enjoyed warm ties with Reagan himself
as well as with his secretaries of state, Alexander Haig and George
Shultz. Despite many points of friction and disagreement between
Washington and Jerusalem, Haig and Shultz were able to balance out, and
even neutralize, Weinberger on numerous occasions.
The only thing left to do is to
hope that the current battle will end without the State of Israel being
vulnerable, and that Chuck Hagel’s dream of isolationist-driven
appeasement will quickly subside into oblivion.
No comments:
Post a Comment