His Adroit Diplomatic Skill Will Save Us
For months America has been asailed with the canard that Kerry's supreme skill in diplomacy could overcome our enemies' refusal to cooperate with the world in a more peaceful manner. Even if negotiating to the point of giving away the farm is acceptable (which it should not be) one should be willing to recognize that diplomacy only works when both sides are willing to work together, and aggressive nations such as Iran fall into that category:
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi has bluntly rejected a nuclear disarmament plan floated by US vice presidential hopeful John Edwards, calling it "campaigning."
Senator Edwards told the WPost that the proposal would represent a "great bargain" for Iran -- and that should Iran reject it, a Kerry administration would be forced to conclude that Iran actually was, as the Bush administration now contends, actively pursuing the weaponisation of nuclear materials.
"If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Senator Edwards told the Washington Post.
This one is simple. Kerry's VEEP candidate himself has said that if the Iranians reject this proposal Kerry's administration would have to admit the Bush administration was right. While his administration does not yet (hopefully will never) exist, the Kerry campaign is now forced to conceed that his diplomacy is of no avail on the likes of Iran.
This is significant because Kerry has repeatedly said that he would have done "everything different" with Iraq, with these differences centered on pursuing a more diplomatic solution. His assumption in this assertion is that his different choices would have been more successful than the current situation. However, his failure to make the slightest headway with Iran illustrates that Kerry has no magic power over our adversaries that makes them kow-tow to him merely because he is willing to acceed to a few of their outrageous (and globally dangerous) positions.
Before, one may have been certain Kerry would have done things different with Iraq. One may have been even fairly confident that his diplomacy may have been effective. What we see now is even with Kerry's diplomacy, the result is the same. The countries that do not want to treat with us will refuse to do so. Kerry has no more power to influence them than does Bush, but Kerry has not now, nor will ever, the backbone to enter into "aggressive negotiations."
