John Kerry has the policy knowledge, leadership skills, and character to be president. His foreign policy philosophy, however, renders him unsuited to executive leadership. That matters because there are rumors that Kerry may run for president in 2020, despite his failed 2004 bid (For what it’s worth, President Trump said he would be “so lucky” if Kerry ran).
I see that John Kerry, the father of the now terminated Iran deal, is thinking of running for President. I should only be so lucky – although the field that is currently assembling looks really good – FOR ME!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018
As secretary of state between 2013 and 2017, Kerry showed that he is absolutely committed to a multilateral order that puts consensus before all else. We saw this in Kerry’s approach to negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. During those discussions in 2014 and 2015, Iran systematically resisted Kerry’s efforts to make the deal tighter in its constraints on the Islamic revolutionary republic. Kerry repeatedly backed down.
Yet he didn’t do so simply to temper Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif’s penchant for screaming. Kerry did so to avoid complaints from Britain, France, and Germany that the Obama administration was risking the prospect of a nuclear deal.
The consequence was an Iran nuclear agreement that lacked any of the markers of American realist leadership. And while Kerry regarded the deal as exceptional, reality rendered it to be profoundly flawed. After all, the deal did absolutely nothing to prevent Iran’s ballistic missile development and its pursuit of long-range nuclear strike capabilities. Neither did the deal provide for timely inspector access to sites of concern. Instead, it allowed Iran to take weeks to accept inspections. Finally, the deal provided Iran’s hardliner base the greatly added means to conduct their foreign policy in the region. Accessing sanctions relief and the repatriation of Iranian financial holdings that had previously been seized, the revolutionary guards have been able to slaughter more Syrians, plot more terrorist attacks in the west, and destabilize the broader Middle East.
Still, Kerry’s problematic approach to dealing with difficult actors isn’t simply defined by his record on Iran. On Russia, for example, Kerry expended vast efforts to win Russian concessions on issues such as the Syrian civil war and Ukraine even though the Russians repeatedly made clear that they were playing him. The result was Russia’s seizure of the strategic initiative in Europe and the Middle East. These failures portend poorly for a Kerry presidency.
Because whoever wins in 2020, be it Trump or somebody else, will have to grapple with the challenge of a rising China that is taking aggressive action to displace the U.S.-led international order. To counter that threat effectively, the next president will need a keen understanding that diplomacy and deterrence are indispensable partners rather than separate portfolios, and an understanding that sometimes the best option is to walk away from the table.
Kerry has repeatedly proved that he isn’t this leader. So yes, John Kerry is a good man and a loyal patriot. But his foreign policy vision renders him ill suited to the nation’s highest office.
