11/11

My high level of interest in the Iran nuclear weapon question is well known to anyone who knows me or who reads my blog. I believe it is one of the most fundamental issues of our time.

My view of the current round of negotiations was set in my blog here, and I have no reason to change my mind. Already there I predicted that France (I included, it seems, wrongly the UK with France) will be the party that will be the toughest to convince.

But I admit that what happened in Geneva last week is not clear to me.

At the beginning, there was this breathless media onslaught that a deal had been reached. Seeing all the pundits and media going out of their way to hype the deal and malign the few that came out against it was shocking but not surprising. It seems that the media’s well of appeasement never goes dry. Typical, of course, was Fareed Zakaria in his CNN program GPS yesterday where he led the appeasement speech and brought two commentators who BOTH support his view. There was not even an effort to pay lip service to the other side’s view, other than to describe them all as warmongers.

I am not going to delve into the analysis of whether the proposed deal was a good one or not. Others are doing that quite satisfactorily.

The question I have is that: France? Really? I have given my view of the resurgence of France in my blog here, and also as mentioned above predicted that they will represent the tough line, but still this does not make sense. I simply cannot believe that France on their own could have enough power or status to sway the US, Russia, China, UK, and Germany to make them all toe the line. I think that there is more to this story.

I am wondering if Secretary Kerry in his fluent French encouraged his counterpart to take the lead here so that he could hide behind the French and point the finger at them later. My suspicion that this was pre-ordained is strengthened by his very halfhearted pointing of the finger at France.

The question is who should Kerry hide from? Why would he seek to hide behind the French’s back? Why would he not take the front in rejecting the deal if he thought it was a bad one? The answer is . . .  drum rolls, wait for it . . . his boss—President Obama.

My theory is that Kerry knew that this is a bad deal but lacked the courage to be the pole bearer here because his boss would not approve, and maybe even instructed him to do otherwise—to accept the deal. The whisper campaign from the White House about the forthcoming “historical” deal was deafening.

Is it possible that Kerry used the French as an excuse to resist the pressure from the White House to accept the deal?

I think that makes sense.

Something is rotten in the State of Washington, DC!