Jimmy Carter's revenge, II

A few days ago I quoted two articles suggesting that John Kerry's foreign policy is inspired more by Jimmy Carter than by Bill Clinton.

It's getting worse (links via lgf).

Q: One of the findings of the 9/11 Commission concerns Iran and its alleged support for Al Qaeda. U.S.-Iranian policy has been in the deep freeze for 25 years. How is that going to change with Kerry?

A: John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration's. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: “Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it.” Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.

God help us.

The respondent is Jamie Rubin, State Department spokesman under Madeleine Albright, current Kerry foreign policy adviser, and husband of the oh-so-unbiased Christiane Amanpour, foreign correspondent for CNN. But lest you conclude that Mr. Rubin is speaking out of turn, here's the relevant portion of the Kerry-Edwards national security platform, “New Strategies To Defeat New Threats”:

Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.

Apparently, Kerry's wise men are willing to accept the claim—ridiculous on its face—that Iran “needs” nuclear power for domestic energy consumption. And apparently, those selfsame sages have concluded that the regime's motives are still unclear.

And apparently, Kerry himself believes that engagement with the single most egregious state sponsor of terrorism is the way to win a war.

But there is a direction here, even if a dangerously misguided one. In contrast, the portion of this document devoted to North Korea manages to say nothing at all about how Kerry might achieve its lofty-sounding goals.

Our goal must be to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program and permanently eliminate its enrichment and reprocessing efforts. All options must remain on the table to accomplish this. Any agreement must have rigorous verification, and must lead to complete and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Despite the obvious threat, for eighteen months we have negotiated largely over process while the North Koreans have reportedly made enough new bomb material for 6-9 new nuclear weapons. John Kerry believes we should continue the six party negotiations with the North Koreans, but also be willing to have direct bilateral talks. And we must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range of issues of concern to us and our allies.

The key word, unsurprisingly, seems to be negotiations. Apart from preemptively caving on the key North Korean demand for bilateral talks, there is nothing here of substance. What's more, this recipe looks suspiciously like that employed by the Clinton administration, which in 1994 sent Jimmy Carter to negotiate the Agreed Framework with North Korea. An agreement, recall, that the Stalinist regime promptly ignored.

Carter is the Forrest Gump of Kerry's foreign policy. And Jeff's comment here seems singularly appropriate.

MORE. Also notable are Andrew Stuttaford's comments yesterday in The Corner:

[T]hink for a moment of the emphasis that Kerry has placed on the need for America to find itself foreign allies. In a way that is a statement of the obvious. Of course it is preferable that the US should not act alone (and let’s repeat again for those who seem unaware of this fact, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US did not), but what Kerry appears to have forgotten is that, if it is to have any meaning, an alliance must be for (or against) something. It must have a purpose. Kerry, by contrast, seems to have elevated the notion of ‘alliance’ into a policy objective in and of itself.

Worse, by stressing again and again the importance he attaches to the need for international approval, Kerry has ensured that, as president he would be in deep domestic political trouble if he fails to find himself a few foreign chums. Potential partners overseas will be aware of this and as a result, President Kerry would find that their price for their support has become even more expensive.

Diplomacy is always cheaper than war. Turning enemies into friends is usually a good policy. If we treat Iran as a hostile enemy, then Iran will remain a hostile enemy. Do you think that's a good, permanent plan?

On the other hand, we could play the "bigger man", so to speak, and offer a hand of friendship. it's very cheap to do so, especially when we've got the US Military guarding our back.

Maybe Iran will spit on that hand, but offering it in the first place wouldn't cost us anything, providing we remain vigilant. The US will be a safer place if we can turn enemies into friends -- far safer than if we just try to keep them afraid. People who are afraid also frequently become desparate.

Where do you think the terrorists come from, anyway? And why do you think they hate us so badly?

Those aren't simple questions. But trying to understand the answers is the first step towards lasting peace.

The trouble is that Iran is already spitting on the collective European effort to negotiate over the nuclear program.

I am not advocating war as a first resort—certainly not. But the "soft power" tactics so favored by the EU are farce: they never have been diplomatically successful (see also: Bosnia) and they never will be (I'd put very good money on that proposition). The fact that Kerry so consciously seeks to emulate that approach is not heartening.