John Kerry has done a really poor job as Secretary of State.
The Iran “deal” should tell you everything you need to know about that.
However, you have to give Kerry some props for his occasional moments of honesty.
He said something on Sunday about Obama’s disastrous “red line” in Syria and you might be surprised by how candid he was.
Secretary of State John Kerry told a painful truth on Sunday, admitting that President Obama’s “red line” fiasco in Syria “cost us significantly” by leading other nations to see America as weak.
Obama drew the line in August 2012 — as a way to avoid getting involved in Syria’s civil war without having to actually justify that restraint. He did so by saying he would intervene if the government did the truly awful, by using chemical weapons.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime … that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” he said, also calling “chem” use a “game-changer.”
It was universally seen as a threat of massive consequences for Bashar al-Assad if he crossed the line. But when Assad did launch chemical attacks a year later, Obama stalled.
He’s absolutely right.
Obama made a huge blunder here and many people believe he broke his promise in order to appease Iran.
Allahpundit has more on that…
From Hot Air:
What better way to show an enemy that nuclear proliferation isn’t in their interest than by … ceding a crucial regional battlefield to them in hopes of getting them to play nice on nukes?
President Barack Obama’s reluctance to give military aid to Syrian rebels may be explained, in part, in three words: Iranian nuclear weapons…
“I think that the United States has not taken a more active role in Syria from the beginning because they didn’t want to disturb the possibility, to give them space, to negotiate with Iran,” Javier Solana, the former European Union foreign policy chief, said Monday at a Brookings Institution discussion about this week’s talks. Solana, who was a top negotiator with Tehran in the nuclear program until 2009, added, “They probably knew that getting very engaged against Assad, engaged even militarily, could contribute to a break in the potential negotiations with Tehran.”…
“Since we are now looking more at a pending regime collapse in Damascus that has a strong potential to turn it into a launch pad for transnational jihadism, Washington is more interested in a negotiated settlement, which involves talking to Iran,” said Kamran Bokhari, a Toronto-based expert on Mideast issues for the global intelligence company Stratfor.
Kerry has done a terrible job at the State Department but he has a good point here.