Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Texas), and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel last week inquiring about the Pentagon’s potentially changing its regulations for how soldiers may discuss their faith.

The senators expressed concern over the effect that any changes would have on the military and asked the secretary if any pending changes comply with current legal protections for soldiers.

“We are very concerned that potential changes could endanger the rights of members of the armed services to practice and share their faith. Policies that prohibit discussion of religious matters by military members could create a chilling effect on members of the armed services of any faith and have an adverse effect on recruitment and retention efforts and the morale of our troops,” the senators wrote in the letter dated May 7.

Lee said he had not yet received a response from the Department of Defense. A department spokesman said he does not know what the status of the secretary’s response is because Hagel responds to inquiries personally.

“It came to my attention that Air Force officials met with the head of a group that espouses anti-religious freedom rhetoric,” Lee said when asked about the letter. “It is unclear if the meeting was an indication that the Air Force might be considering changing their policies, so we wanted to ensure the rights of members of the military would be protected.”

That April 23 meeting was between Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and top Air Force leaders, including several generals, according to a Washington Post editorial. Weinstein and others expressed concerns about Christians sharing their faith in the military.

Weinstein’s meeting with top Air Force commanders came after he wrote an editorial in the Huffington Post in which he called Christians who defend religious freedom “pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers” and “human monsters.”

The Air Force then published a new religious policy at the urging of Weinstein, the Washington Post suggested. The policy prohibited officers from using their position “to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion,” the Post wrote. Soldiers who violate the policy could be court-martialed.

News of the Air Force policy set off a firestorm.

Breitbart News ran an article declaring, “Pentagon Taps Anti-Christian Extremist For Religious Tolerance Policy,” as well as a follow-up piece titled, “Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith.”

Fox News picked up the story, and the Family Research Council launched a petition on April 29 urging the military to protect soldiers’ religious freedom. The petition has over 166,000 signatures.

The military sent mixed messages when trying to quell the controversy. A Pentagon spokesman first told Fox News, “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.”

The department issued a statement a few days later on May 2 affirming its respect for the rights of all soldiers and denying Weinstein was a consultant to the military, contrary to Breitbart News’ reporting.

The Army Times also reported that the Air Force was not issuing any new regulations in response to Weinstein’s meeting with the branch’s brass. The timing of the launch of the “blue book” was purely coincidental, an Air Force spokesman told the Times.

The same day that the Pentagon released its second statement, it released a third statement distinguishing between evangelization, which is permitted, and proselytization, which is prohibited.

“Service members can share their faith (evangelize) but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” the Pentagon’s statement said.

“We would see evangelizing and proselytizing as essentially the same thing,” said former Army Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, now executive vice president at the Family Research Council.

“The freedom of religion means you can live your faith, and for a Christian that includes sharing your faith,” Boykin said.

Boykin remains concerned.

“Their statements have been contradictory, so we don’t know which statement is the current or accurate statement,” Boykin said, calling the Pentagon’s position “nebulous.”

Boykin said he supports a prohibition on coercion, if that is what the military is after. He called for a clear, department-wide policy protecting soldiers’ right to practice their religion as they see fit.

Boykin sent a request to the Pentagon on May 3 to meet with Hagel. He has yet to receive a response.

Weinstein’s office did not return a request for comment.

Colin Kahl, who served as Obama’s deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East until December 2011 when he transitioned to the president’s reelection campaign, writes in a new report that “if all else fails” the administration could be forced to “shift toward containment [of Iran] regardless of current preferences.”

Critics of the administration say the report appears to mark a significant departure from the administration’s stated policy of discounting containment as a viable option regarding Iran.

The 80-page report “outlines a containment strategy to manage and mitigate the dangers associated with a nuclear-armed Iran if prevention efforts—up to and including the use of force—fail.”

“This preference for prevention [of a nuclear armed Iran] should not be used as an excuse to avoid thinking through the requirements for effective containment,” the report states. It was authored by Kahl of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a Georgetown University security studies student, and another CNAS official, a left-leaning policy shop with ties to the administration.

Kahl told the Washington Free Beacon that he is not advocating for containment, but recommending that the White House “plan for the worst.”

“I haven’t ‘pivoted’ to containment,” Kahl said via email in response to the Free Beacon. “As the report notes numerous times, we do not support a shift to containment. Prevention remains the wisest policy.”

Kahl said he is not giving up on preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capabilities.

“I still think prevention is possible and that all instruments of national power should be employed toward that goal,” he said. “But while I’m hopeful we can still succeed in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, I also think that we should plan for the worst.”

The CNAS report also acknowledges that the White House is not likely to publicly give up on prevention.

“Although the United States is not likely to acquiesce to the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, Tehran may be able to achieve an unstoppable breakout capability or develop nuclear weapons in secret before preventive measures have been exhausted,” the report states.

“Alternatively, an ineffective military strike could produce minimal damage to Iran’s nuclear program while strengthening Tehran’s motivation to acquire the bomb,” the report states. “Under any of these scenarios, Washington would likely be forced to shift toward containment regardless of current preferences.”

One Iran expert and former Pentagon adviser said the CNAS report represents a significant step in a dangerous direction.

“Kahl and crew seemingly have no sense of the damage to America’s standing in the region that a nuclear Iran could do,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq.

“Why would any state in the Persian Gulf trust America to have its back after men like Kahl counsel the United States to cast aside its past promises to prevent a nuclear Iran?” he asked. “Why would they risk hosting the bases upon which containment would rest?”

Kahl, who acted as one of Obama’s top national security figures and a key campaign official, is sending the wrong message by lending his name to the report, Rubin said.

“Kahl fails to understand the reasons why containment and deterrence are so risky: He doesn’t address who would have command and control of an Iranian nuclear bomb,” Rubin said.

“In reality, it would be not only the Revolutionary Guards but the most hardline and ideologically pure faction inside that organization,” he said.

Kahl maintains that his views “don’t represent the administration position in any way.”

“Neither our allies nor Iran is likely to read what I say as representing official views,” he said when asked if the report could be misinterpreted by U.S. allies as a tacit endorsement of containment.

“No one would read the report and conclude containment is a great option,” Kahl said, explaining that the report clearly notes containment would be “very difficult, risky, complex, and costly.”

“Our allies and partners know that the administration has zero desire to pursue containment,” he said. “But I also believe that we should plan for the things we don’t want to happen, not just the things we hope will happen.”

Former George W. Bush administration adviser Elliott Abrams said Kahl’s presence on the report suggests “that all options may not really be on the table.”

“This kind of report, from someone who held a key job relating to Iran in the Obama administration, suggests just as the Hagel appointment does that all options may not really be on the table,” Abrams said.

“But as I read the report, the list of things the United States would need to do to try and contain a nuclear Iran actually proves the opposite—that containment is impossible,” he said.

“I think reports like this telegraph to Tehran that they need not take our threats seriously,” he said.

CNAS has been funded in part by the progressive anti-nuclear arms group Ploughshares Fund, which aggressively advocates in favor of engagement with Iran and for a rollback of economic sanctions.

CNAS has received funding from Ploughshares since at least 2009 and was awarded a $100,000 grant in February 2013.

The Ploughshares grant is to “support high-impact research and analysis of the Iranian nuclear question and its ramifications for security in the Middle East and the United States,” according to a description on the group’s grant database.

Ploughshares donates to many pro-Iran groups that have lobbied to lift economic sanctions on Iran.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was a member of the group’s board until his nomination to head the Pentagon. Ploughshares helped fund a media campaign to boost Hagel’s image during his contentious nomination process.

“Using the full range of tools, the United States will continue to work toward achieving our goal of ending the violence and helping the Syrian people transition to a post-Assad authority,” Hagel said during the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Soref Symposium, an annual Washington, D.C., gathering that focuses on tracking unrest in the Middle East.

Hagel stopped short of saying the U.S. would commit military forces. However, he said the Obama administration will not permit Assad to continue killing citizens.

Toppling Assad “will help restore stability, peace, and hope for all Syrian people,” Hagel said, according to his prepared remarks. “That goal is shared by our allies in the region—not only those bordering Syria, but also our partners in the Gulf.”

Hagel warned that the longer the conflict drags on, the more likely extremist jihadis are to gain a foothold in the country.

“As you all know, the conflict in Syria is intensifying and becoming more sectarian,” he said. “The possibilities of state fragmentation are increasing, as are the risks of extremism and proliferation.”

While the Obama administration has been sharply criticized for not providing weaponry to the Syrian opposition, Hagel maintained it is “leading the international community in organizing and applying sanctions.”

The United States is the single largest provider of humanitarian aid in Syria, committing nearly $510 million to date, Hagel said.

“We have given non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, including the armed opposition, and that support is growing,” he said. “The U.S. military has been very involved in delivering those supplies. We are also urging Russia and China to do more to help resolve this conflict, because it is also in their interests to end the war.”

Hagel went on to discuss the multiple regional challenges the United States faces in combatting extremism and maintaining close relationships with a region in flux.

“The old order in the Middle East is disappearing, and what will replace it remains unknown,” Hagel said. “There will continue to be instability in the region as this process plays out, and we all must adjust accordingly.”

Hagel said, “The best hope for long-term stability relies on countries like Egypt, Libya, and Syria making transitions to democratic rule.”

Hagel also discussed the details of two wide-ranging arms deals the United States recently signed with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

“While in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, I finalized agreements to provide their Air Forces with access to significant new capabilities,” he said.

Saudi Arabia, for instance, will be given “84 Boeing F-15SA fighter aircraft,” Hagel

The United Arab Emirates will “purchase … 25 F-16 Desert Falcons, which will further enhance their ability to participate in coalition operations such as Libya and Afghanistan, where they have made important contributions,” Hagel said.

Iran also remains a top U.S. concern in the region.

The Defense Department has recently moved “high-end air, missile defense, and naval assets” to the Persian Gulf in order to “deter Iranian aggression and respond to other contingencies,” Hagel said.

The defense secretary also warned that while terror groups such as al Qaeda may be declining in strength, other radical groups are quickly taking its place.

“Al Qaeda has been substantially weakened in recent years,” but “affiliated terrorist groups like the al-Nusra Front are seeking new footholds in the region,” Hagel said.

He also discussed his recent trip to Israel, where the United States and the Jewish state cemented news arms deals.

“One of the core principles of U.S.-Israel security cooperation is America’s commitment to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge—its capacity to defeat any threat or combination of threats from state or non-state actors,” Hagel said.

“Beyond rocket and missile defense cooperation, DoD has been working for more than a year to increase Israel’s ability to confront and respond to a range of other threats,” he explained.

The United States agreed last month to give Israel a slew of new weapons that will help it combat the threat from Iran and other hostile nations.

These include “anti-radiation missiles and more effective radars for its fleet of fighter jets, KC-135 refueling aircraft, and the V-22 Osprey,” Hagel said. “Along with Israel’s status as the only Middle Eastern nation participating in the Joint Strike Fighter program, this new capabilities package will significantly upgrade their qualitative military edge.”

Hagel also praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood just hours after opposition leaders and other experts slammed the group for shirking its democratic responsibilities.

“Among the most important of these relationships [in the Middle East] is our defense partnership with Egypt,” Hagel said, noting that the Defense Department is working directly “with the Egyptians to help them improve their capabilities to deal with these challenges, and counter terrorism.”

Hagel affirmed “America’s continued commitment to our strategic partnership” during recent meetings with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and other senior government figures.

He also expressed  “continued desire to work together to achieve common security objectives.”

“As President Morsi and the Egyptian government work to implement political and economic reform, they will find a strong partner in the United States,” Hagel said.

Tehran also continued building ballistic missiles and appears on the way to flight testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015, according to a brief summary of the annual Report on the Military Power of Iran.

However, the report to Congress for the first time states Iran’s military doctrine is “defensive,” a significant shift reflecting the more soft line policy views toward the theocratic state held by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

The public portion of the first report to Congress under Hagel also was sharply curtailed this year from the four-page, unclassified assessment released in April 2012, to five paragraphs for the latest unclassified executive summary of the report dated January 2013.

Pentagon spokesmen initially said the five-paragraph executive summary was classified as “for official use only” and would not be released. A spokeswoman for the office of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence later made a copy of the new assessment available to the Washington Free Beacon.

Hagel came under fire for his views on Iran during his Senate confirmation battle. It was disclosed during hearings that the former senator opposed unilateral U.S. sanctions on Iran over its illicit nuclear program. As a senator he voted against labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization. And in 2006 he dismissed a military strike against Iran as “not a viable, feasible or responsible option.”

As defense secretary, he has adopted the Obama administration policy that all options are available for use against Iran.

On the use of surrogates, the report says Iran is expanding economic and security agreements with members of the nonaligned states in Latin America and Africa, a reference to Iran’s growing relations with oil-rich Venezuela under the regime of the late leftist leader Hugo Chavez.

“Iran plays a growing role outside of the [Persian] Gulf and Levant with a full spectrum of military capabilities that includes the use of non-state actors, such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia groups and the Taliban,” the report said. “Iran’s principles of military strategy are based on deterrence, asymmetrical, and attrition warfare.”

On military doctrine, the report says Iran adheres to a “defensive” military doctrine that is designed to “slow an invasion; to asymmetrically target its adversaries’ economic, political, and military interests; and to force a diplomatic solution to hostilities while avoiding any concessions that challenge its core interests.”

The report’s release comes amid a joint U.S.-Israeli covert action program designed to disrupt and slow Iran’s nuclear program, which the International Atomic Energy Agency has said contains elements of covert weapons development.

Additionally, the report comes as Israel debates whether to conduct military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, many of which are spread around the country in hardened or underground bunkers.

The report says Iran continued to threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway between the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman that is a transit point for an estimated 20 percent of the world’s oil.

U.S. military officials have said Iran is capable of shutting down the strait but not keeping it closed to shipping traffic.

“Iran also has threatened to launch missiles and support terrorist reprisals against U.S. interests and regional allies in response to an attack,” the report said.

Iran’s main covert military forces are the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force, set up in 1990 to “provide arms, funding and paramilitary training to extremist groups,’ the report said.

“We assess with high confidence that during the past three decades, Iran has methodically cultivated a network of terrorist and militant groups capable of targeting regional and extra-regional targets,” the report stated. “IRGC-QF is Iran’s principal interlocutor to Hezbollah.”

Iranians supplied deadly armor-piercing bombs to insurgents in Iraq with little or no response from the U.S. or allied militaries in Iraq during the major portion of the war in the country.

The Iranians also are supplying weaponry to the Taliban in Afghanistan even though the Islamist Afghan fighters are primarily Sunni Muslims while Iran’s rulers are rival Shias.

According to defense and intelligence officials, the Qods force has been covertly supporting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad against rebel forces seeking to oust him.

Iranian Islamist militants helped establish a pro-Assad militia called Jaysh al-Shabi, which has been described as a Syrian equivalent to Iran’s Basiji, a domestic paramilitary force. Jaysh al-Shabi also is similar to Hezbollah in terms of its relationship to Tehran.

On Iran’s nuclear program, the Defense Intelligence Agency-drafted report follows the U.S. intelligence community’s controversial 2007 position that Iran has not decided to build nuclear arms, only the technology and expertise to do so. A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded Iran halted all work on nuclear arms in 2003. A recent IAEA report said the agency has evidence of continued work by Iran on nuclear weapons past 2003, including high-speed electronic detonators and high explosives used in nuclear bombs.

“Iran continues to develop technological capabilities applicable to nuclear weapons,” the report said. “It is proceeding with uranium enrichment and heavy-water nuclear reactor activities in violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and also continues to develop ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons.”

On missiles, the report said that since the 1980 to 1988 Iran-Iraq war Iran has been developing and deploying missiles “to counter perceived threats from Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East and to project power in the region.”

“With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015,” it states. That assessment was unchanged from the 2012 report.

Iran’s long-range missiles are the main reason the Pentagon is building a time-phased missile defense shield in Europe, along with NATO allies. The system included both sea- and ground-based missile interceptors and radar and other sensors used to track and target enemy missiles.

Hagel recently announced the Pentagon is canceling the last phase of the missile defense system that would have fielded an improved long-range interceptor capable of hitting an Iranian ICBM. The SM-3 Block IIB missile was canceled amid calls from Russia for legal restrictions on such interceptors in the European defense shield.

The 2012 report said Iran was supporting both the government of Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai and insurgent groups.

Last year’s report also said Iran was providing military and communications support to the Assad regime in Syria and probably military trainers.

The Iranian military also “trains Hezbollah and Palestinian extremist groups at camps throughout the region,” the 2012 report said. “Iran provides funding and possibly weapons to [the Palestinian terrorist groups] Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip.”

Missile developments from last year’s report include deployment of short-range missiles with maneuvering precision-guided warheads, extended range versions of the 620-mile-range Shahab-3, and a new 1,242-mile-range missile called Ashura.

The test in 2008 of a multi-stage space launcher was described as “a test bed for developing long-range ballistic missile technologies,” the 2012 report said.

The White House confirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies “assess with varying degrees of confidence” the use of chemical weapons, in a letter to Sens. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) and John McCain (R., Ariz.).

“Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specially the chemical agent sarin,” the letter reads. “This assessment is based on physiological samples. Our standard of evidence must buildon these intelligence assessments as we seek to establish credible and corroborated facts. For example, the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confim how the exposure occurred and under what conditions.”

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday that administration believes the Assad regime, rather than opposition fighters, is responsible for the weapons.

“I have been in contact with senior officials in Washington today and most recently the last couple of hours on this issue,” Hagel told reporters in Abu Dhabi. ”We cannot confirm the origin of these weapons, but we do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.”

Blood samples from multiple people have tested positive for sarin, a nerve agent, officials told Danger Room Thursday.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly isolated the use of chemical weapons as an action that would cross a “red line” required for U.S. military action.

The White House said Thursday “intelligence assessments alone are not sufficient” in the Congressional letter for administration “decision-making.”

“Only credible and corroborated facts that provide us with some degree of certainty will guide our decision-making,” the White House director of legislative affairs, Miguel Rodriguez, writes in the letter.

Hagel told reporters the United States will move to “fully investigate” the assessments through allies and the United Nations.

“The president has made it clear that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of such weapons to terrorist groups would be unacceptable,” Hagel said. ”The United States has an obligation to fully investigate – including with all key partners and allies, and through the United Nations – evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria.”

More than 70,000 people have died in the Syrian civil war, which began more than two years ago.

Update (2:14 p.m.): A senior White House said Thursday it is not yet clear whether the administration’s red line has been crossed during a conference call with reporters, Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin reports:

A senior White House official said on the conference call that the intelligence community’s assessment was not enough to determine that President Obama’s red line regarding U.S. intervention in Syria has been crossed.

“We are continuing to do further work to establish a strong, firm, evidentiary basis to determine whether or not the red line has been crossed,” the official said. “If we make a determination that the red line has been crossed… what we will be doing is consulting with friends and allies as to the next steps forward.” [...]

“It is crucial, given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments on weapons of mass destruction… that we are able to present evidence that is airtight,” the official said. “It is absolutely the case that the president’s red line is the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups. Our standard of evidence has to build on these intelligence assessments. We want to continue to investigate.”

The white House official also declined to say what options might be on the table.

A senior Israeli intelligence official, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, told a security conference Tuesday that “in our assessment, the (Syrian) regime has used, and is using, chemical weapons.”

Israel has warned it will take action if it discovers Syria has transferred chemical weapons to “hostile forces,” an apparent reference to Hezbollah or jihadi militias battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, but it has never issued warnings regarding the regime’s use of such weapons against the rebels.

However, the United States has issued such warnings: President Barack Obama cautioned the Assad regime in a speech last month, “We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people. … The world is watching, and we will hold you accountable.”

Gen. Brun, who heads the research department of Military Intelligence, said the Syrian army had used lethal chemicals, probably based on Sarin nerve gas, against rebels “on a number of occasions”. Photographs, he said, had shown victims foaming from the mouth and with decreased pupil size, signs of a chemical attack.

Brun said the absence of international condemnation “could signal that such use is legitimate.” His remarks are the first time an Israeli official has given backing to charges of chemical warfare emanating from Syria.

Hagel said two days ago that U.S. intelligence agencies are still assessing whether chemical weapons were used in Syria. “The Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons would be a game changer,” he said. There was no immediate American reaction to Brun’s statement.

The aim of Hagel’s visit was to coordinate the positions of Jerusalem and Washington, particularly on Iran, and to assure Israel of America’s support by an infusion of weaponry.

This includes tankers for midair refueling, which would help sustain an attack on Iran by the Israeli air force, as well as the V-22 Osprey, an aircraft capable of vertical lift-off like a helicopter and the high-speed flight of a conventional aircraft. The Osprey could be useful for rescuing downed pilots in Iran or for inserting special forces behind Hezbollah lines if war breaks out with Lebanon.

Israeli commentators see Washington’s gift as coming with strings attached.

“The military and diplomatic aid from the United States, which is slated to grow, will also require Jerusalem to coordinate fully with Washington in the most sensitive matter, the handling of the Iranian nuclear threat,” wrote Ha’artez’s military correspondent Amos Harel. “[This] will limit Israel’s ability to act independently on this issue despite the lip service paid by Hagel and U.S. President Barack Obama a month before him to Israel’s right to act independently to protect itself.”

“Outside experts said that the report’s conclusions helped explain why the administration announced last month that it was bolstering long-range missile defenses in Alaska and California, designed to protect the West Coast, and was rushing another antimissile system, originally not intended for deployment until 2015, to Guam,” the New York Times reported Thursday afternoon.

The disclosure was made during a several-hour hearing at which Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the current budgetary shortfalls as an opportunity to “shape” and “reform” the military for “a different time.”

The budget reflects the president’s strategy to create “a smaller and leaner force,” Hagel said. This drawdown would be two-thirds complete by the end of fiscal year 2014.

Hagel and Dempsey said the mandatory budget cuts known as the “sequester” were detrimental to the military’s preparedness. They also noted the fiscal crunch on the military could continue without congressional action, as the Budget Control Act of 2011, which implemented the sequester, contains further cuts in the fall.

Hagel’s presentation to the House committee came after President Barack Obama introduced his 2014 budget on Wednesday. The budget cuts about $120 billion from the department’s current budget, although it does not include the upcoming sequestration cuts.

The president’s budget and its defense component were met with opposition from congressional leaders and outside experts.

While the hearing on Thursday was largely cordial, committee chairman Buck McKeon (R., Calif.) indicated his displeasure with the president’s budget for the Defense Department in his opening statement. He asked why “our troops are again being forced to foot the bill for out-of-control spending” and wanted to know which missions the military would now abandon with its budget cuts.

McKeon noted Chairman Dempsey had testified in February that the military would not be able to sustain any more fiscal cuts and maintain the same level of operations, testimony Dempsey reiterated on Thursday.

“The means to prepare [the military] are becoming uncertain,” Dempsey said.

Hagel noted several areas of constriction, including in the healthcare plans for military families and in some areas of acquisitions. The military is increasing spending in other areas, such as cyber security, Hagel said.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R., Texas) confronted Hagel with the conventional view of his role in this administration.

“There is a widespread view that you were brought into the Pentagon to cut defense,” Thornberry said.

“The president did not instruct me, when he asked me to consider doing this job, to go over and to cut the heart out of the Pentagon,” Hagel said.

Congressmen pressed Hagel repeatedly on the fact that the defense budget does not account for future sequestration cuts, and each time he referred to an ongoing analysis his staff is performing to prepare for different budget conditions.

Hagel praised the president’s budget for including “balanced deficit reduction proposals” that would allow Congress to repeal the sequestration.

He also noted the cuts to the military’s budget were back-loaded, which would give the department more time to plan for them but also means that many of the cuts would be implemented after the president and his administration leave office.

Over the course of the three-and-a-half hour hearing, congressmen asked about topics ranging from sexual assault in the military, the potential for base closures, and nuclear proliferation—an issue that attracted attention during Hagel’s confirmation battle. Hagel insisted that the Department of Defense does not fund nonproliferation initiatives, as that issue falls to the State Department.

The hearing was the first for Sec. Hagel before the House committee since he suffered a bruising fight in the Senate Armed Services Committee over his confirmation.

The North Koreans recently began fueling two road-mobile Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missiles located along the east coast between the cities of Wonsan and Hamhung, according to intelligence officials.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said in addition to the 2,500-mile-range Musudans the North Koreans could conduct test firings of several 620-mile-range Nodong missiles and shorter-range Scuds simultaneously as a way to thwart U.S. missile defenses.

Unlike earlier launches, the North Koreans are not expected to provide advance warning of the timing for the launches, such as announcing a sea and air closure zone, because of heightened U.S. and Japanese missile defenses.

The Pentagon has at least four missile-interceptor ships in the region equipped with SM-3 interceptors. Additionally, long-range interceptors based in Alaska and California are ready to counter any missiles fired toward the United States.

The SM-3 is capable of hitting some intermediate-range missiles but analysts say the interceptor would be stretching its capabilities in hitting a Musudan because of the high speeds of the missiles.

It could not be learned if the U.S. ground-based interceptors are capable of knocking out the last stages of a Musudan, which are believed to have enough range to reach the U.S. military hub of Guam, in the north Pacific.

“The United States and Japan are preparing to shoot down the missiles if they fly over Japanese territory or are aimed at U.S. bases in the region,” said one official.

The missile tests would be banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions passed after earlier long-range missile tests by North Korea.

However, the latest tests come amid heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula in a standoff between Pyongyang and the United States and South Korea.

North Korea is seeking acceptance as a nuclear weapons state after conducting its third underground nuclear tests Feb. 12.

The United States is refusing to acknowledge that status. The refusal has triggered unprecedented North Korean threats to fire long-range nuclear missiles at U.S. cities, military bases in Asia, and South Korea.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel canceled a planned U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile test for this week after China urged both Washington and Pyongyang to seek to tamp down tensions.

However, North Korea has not reciprocated. U.S. officials said a North Korean missile launch could take place any time from Wednesday to Monday—the anniversary of the birthday of North Korean founder Kim Il-sung.

Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday that the military has prepared contingencies for any North Korea provocation.

“North Korea has been, with its bellicose rhetoric, with its actions, … skating very close to a dangerous line,” Hagel said. “Their actions and their words have not helped defuse a combustible situation.”

The United States is “fully prepared to deal with any contingency, any action that North Korea may take or any provocation that they may instigate,” Hagel said.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said data on North Korea’s capability to make a small warhead for a missile is classified.

“But they have conducted two nuclear tests,” he said during an appearance with Hagel. “They have conducted several successful ballistic missile launches, and in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the worst case. And that’s why we’re postured as we are today.”

Hagel described North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as “unpredictable.”

“As to should the American people be concerned about their safety and security, we have every capacity to deal with any action that North Korea would take to protect this country and the interests of this country and our allies,” Hagel said.

Adm. Samuel Locklear, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that U.S. missile defenses are capable of stopping North Korean missile attacks on the continental United States, Hawaii, Guam, and regional bases in Asia.

Locklear said he would recommend shooting down any North Korean missile launches in the coming days that threatens the U.S. homeland or U.S. allies.

However, Locklear said he would not recommend downing a missile if it does not pose a threat. As Pacific commander, Locklear has the final say in ordering the use of missile defenses against foreign missiles.

Intelligence and warning indicators are expected to provide commanders with a sense of where the North Korean missiles are aimed. Without the indicators, sensors can quickly provide a flight path and landing point, Locklear said.

The four-star admiral said China is a critical player in reining in North Korea, noting: “I think that they could do more.”

Chinese leader Xi Jinping issued a vague statement on Monday calling on states in the region not to create instability, a comment widely viewed as a rebuke of North Korea.

A state-controlled Chinese news outlet for the first time on Wednesday specifically criticized North Korea. The jingoistic Global Times, an official Communist Party-affiliated newspaper, stated in an editorial that whatever the cause for moves toward war on the Korean peninsula, “North Korea has overdone it.”

The editorial then went on to criticize the United States as responsible for growing tensions along with South Korea. The editorial also accused Japan of exploiting the tensions as a way to develop its missile defenses.

“I must admit, as this [standoff with Iran] has spiraled down over the last four years, that option, if not becoming more attractive, looks least worst in my eye,” Hayden said Thursday during a discussion on Iran’s nuclear program organized by the Atlantic Council think tank.

Hayden, who attended the event as an audience member, said that while U.S. action against Iran remains “a bad option,” his opposition towards it has lessened over the years.

“There had been no doubt that it’s a very difficult and bad option,” Hayden said. “When we discussed this in the Bush administration, [former Secretary of Defense] Bob Gates, it was very common for him to point out if we go do this, we will create that which we’re trying to prevent—an Iran that will stop at nothing in secret to develop a weapon.”

Hayden disagreed that “thousands of Iranians would likely be killed by the attacks,” as the Atlantic Council maintains in its latest report on Iran, arguing that the number would probably be lower. Hayden was a member of the team that assembled the report.

Panelists at the event, including former Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat and former State Department whistleblower Greg Thielmann, disagreed on the need to fully prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Thielmann maintained that the United States should set the bar lower in its ongoing nuclear talks with Iran.

“Conceding Iran’s right to enrichment is a must,” he said, explaining that the United States could permit Iran to enrich a low level of uranium, the key element in a nuclear weapon.

Additionally, the United States “should give up the demand to shut Fordow,” an underground nuclear facility believed to be used for illicit enrichment activities.

The “key to the deal would be some sanctions relief,” Theilmann continued, arguing that the European Union could ease its economic sanctions on Iran.

“I personally think the consequences of a nuclear Iran are overdrawn,” said Thielmann, who served as top intelligence officer at the State Department before resigning in protest in the lead up to the Iraq war. “Why should we believe the Iranian bomb would threaten the very existence of Israel when [Israeli Defense Minister] Ehud Barak does not?”

Eizenstat disagreed, saying the United States would look weak and ineffective if Iran successfully obtains a nuclear weapon.

“I think that there is an underestimation of the massive defeat for the U.S. if we in a sense allow Iran to slide into a nuclear capacity,” said Eizenstat, a former Clinton administration official who served as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union.

“It’s contrary to what the president has said repeatedly and would be seen as weakness by our allies in the region,” Eizenstat said. “It would be taken as an absolute massive defeat.”

Eizenstat also warned it could destabilize international relations.

“In addition, it would mean a country could simply thumb its nose at five [United Nations] Security Council resolutions with impunity,” Eizenstat warned. “What conceivable incentive would any country have to take the U.S. or UN Security Council seriously?”

The debate between the experts was organized to mark the unveiling of the Atlantic Council’s latest report, “Time to Move from Tactics to Strategy on Iran.”

The in-depth analysis proposes the United States ramp up diplomatic efforts with Iran while bolstering sanctions and engaging the Iranian people.

The Atlantic Council is the former home of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who chaired the organization from 2009 to 2012. The report could provide a window into Hagel’s mindset regarding Iran and a potential U.S. strike on its nuclear sites.

“President Barack Obama faces a relatively short timeframe in which to peacefully address the most significant near-term foreign policy and security challenge for his second term,” the report warns.

“Due to Iran’s persistent nuclear advances, Obama’s repeated pledge that the United States would stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons could well be tested in the coming months,” the report states.

The report goes on to advocate in favor of “retaining the option of military strikes” as a last resort.

“The Obama administration must ensure that this threat remains credible as it may ultimately be the only course that deters Iran from deciding to build nuclear weapons,” the report states.

However, an attack would likely endanger Israel and lead Iran to “increase support for militant groups in Afghanistan that target U.S. personnel,” according to the report. “These potential adverse consequences underline the need to redouble efforts to reach a diplomatic resolution of the crisis.”