• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Sen. John Kerry is in the Middle East trying to undermine U.S. foreign policy – a specialty since his youth.

During a stop in Egypt last Friday, he told reporters he was willing to go to Tehran, presumably a la Neville Chamberlain in Munich, but, unfortunately, he was just too busy to establish peace in our time on his current trip.

“I don’t have time and we were not able to make arrangements in the short time span we had, but I would be willing to go,” he explained. Asked if he planned to make the trip later, he said: “At the appropriate time, at some point.”

Are we to assume from this statement that John Kerry has more important tasks on his agenda than establishing peace with Iran?

If all it takes is talking to the terrorist-backing mullah regime, why has Kerry waited this long?

Why doesn’t he have concrete plans to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – now or in the future?

Are we to believe Kerry just came up with this idea to meet with Iranian leaders since he took off for the Middle East?

If talking to the Iranians holds such high hopes for peace, why didn’t he have the foresight to make arrangements earlier?

Maybe you think these questions are unfair. But I want you to recall that it was back in the 2004 presidential race – more than two years ago – that Kerry first floated the idea of providing Iran with the uranium it needed for nuclear power in exchange for a promise by Tehran not to build nuclear weapons. So, Iran has been on his mind for a long time. He is aware of projections that Iran will become a bona fide nuclear weapons power some time in 2007. He has undoubtedly heard Ahmadinejad’s threats to destroy Israel and the U.S.

So, why on earth would he not make the time to play his diplomatic card with Iran? What’s taking so long? If Kerry truly believes he can make a difference in the balance of terror that currently exists in the region, why not drop everything and make it happen?

In other words, what could possibly be more important than defusing the nuclear crisis building in the Persian Gulf – one that many fear could lead to a global conflagration?

Is there a Christmas foxhunt scheduled in Nantucket? Is he afraid he and Teresa will miss an important polo match? Does he have an important meeting with his political advisers in Paris?

I’m just trying to understand Kerry’s priorities.

He’s visiting with President Bashar Assad, the murderous tyrant in Syria. He says he’s going to push the Syrians on a number of different issues. But it seems he is really going with his hand out – hoping to get the Syrians to back his own misguided ideas about U.S. foreign policy.

“I’m curious about what they might or might not be willing to do as we go forward here,” Kerry said about the Syrians. “Do they have any suggestions how the various equations in the region might be changed?”

It’s clear he doesn’t have too many ideas of his own – other than embarrassing his own country. But he thinks the anti-Semitic, anti-American regime in Damascus might be able to enlighten him.

It’s also clear Kerry has different expectations of Middle Eastern people than he has had in the past for others. He says it’s too much to expect them to embrace liberty.

“We will always be a nation that advocates democracy … but we need to be smart about the steps we take and the pace at which we demand people make transitions,” he said.

Funny, I don’t recall Kerry and his ideological cohorts being quite so patient in South Africa, South Vietnam and with the Iranians under the rule of the shah.

Kerry is an extremely reckless politician – unaccountable to anyone else, even his own evolving worldview. He doesn’t have a clue as to what he is doing in the Middle East, other than humiliating the Bush administration. He doesn’t care how much he hurts his own country’s interests, as long as he perceives he is furthering his own.



Related special offer:

“Showdown with Nuclear Iran”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.