Kerry Throws Witless Support Behind Obama's Gutless Stance

Kerry smugly attributes Iranian provocative behavior over the past eight years to the "tough talk" that George W. Bush utilized. Once again, the control factor is suggesting that "if only" Bush had talked nicely the regime would have mirrored it back. This is Kerry's example of how our words hurt us. Now that Obama will talk kindly and apologetically, Kerry suggests Iran will certainly respond with wide pupils and unclenched fists. What Kerry misses is that unless the regime is uprooted, it will act in every way consistent with its desire to obtain nuclear weapons and to see its goals of dominance and the destruction of Israel and America fulfilled -- irrespective of how "nice" Obama is to it.

Despite his distortions, Kerry's principle is ironically correct -- our words do matter. The one time that Iran did respond cooperatively to America, following 9/11, was after Bush marched through Saddam Hussein's army in three weeks. Bush had clearly identified the regime for what it was and acted congruently with those words. Afraid that Bush would turn right and march through Tehran, the Iranian Republican Guards (Ahmadinejad's base) moved much of their money out of the country while taking certain actions supposedly helpful to Bush in dealing with al-Qaeda. This is when, according to the nefarious CIA National Intelligence Estimate, Iran took a temporary cessation of nuclear development. It was precisely because of Bush's "tough talk" that they showed some signs of cooperation. They had begun to lose comfort that they would be around much longer.

It was only after Kerry and the American Left began to lambast Bush and the U.S. military day and night that the regime began to see that America had no stomach for aggressive action to interfere with Iranian nuclear ambitions, much less regime rule. As mistakes in Iraq floated to the surface of public exposure, vitriol at home cracked every impression of strength Bush had tried to assemble in preparation for negotiations with Iran. The clear lesson was that Kerry's principle was correct -- our words do matter. The problem was that it was Kerry who had the wrong words, and those words destroyed the sense of self-respect and internal conviction that is necessary to successfully resolve conflicts with a regime such as Iran's.

In Cairo, Obama both apologized for Moussadeq and offered negotiations, and suggested we all had common interests which could draw us together. Kerry attributes the Iranian people's courage to challenge the election results and the entire basis of the regime to Obama's words. Yet quite the opposite can be inferred. The Moussadeq comment actually signaled to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that Obama had no plans to interfere with his rule. Obama's speech, citing the notion that no nation has the right to stop another from peaceful nuclear power, gave further comfort that Obama would not interfere with Ahmadinejad's Iranian nuclear ambitions. In essence, Obama's words confirmed for Khamenei that Ahmadinejad's aggressive anti-American posturing worked. Is it a wonder that Khamenei would bet on the same horse again and do so with blatant confidence that no challenge would likely mount?

This is precisely the time that America needs to recognize that its words do have an effect and its lack of words an even greater effect. The Iranian people who so love America want to know unmistakably it is not unrequited. Obama's inept response will be taken as betrayal. Kerry's attempt to be "smart" and "nuanced" will likely prove to be regrettable stupidity.