Why does anyone listen to Ben Rhodes on foreign policy?

I note this in light of Rhodes’s latest gem of a response to President Trump’s killing of Qassem Soleimani.

Having spent the Obama administration’s eight years restraining the military and intelligence community from holding Soleimani to account, Rhodes isn’t exactly a credible source on this issue. Indeed, even the Europeans thought Obama gave away too much to Iran in the 2015 nuclear deal.

But what rings most hollow is Rhodes’s caveat that Soleimani was a bad guy. After all, the nuclear deal Rhodes so adores granted Tehran tens of billions of dollars consciously leaving off the table any restrictions on Iran’s use of that funding for its storied terrorist and paramilitary activity. Thanks to Rhodes and company, Iran has been able to use new business deals and sanctions relief to export its fanatical revolution.

In short, Soleimani died in Rhodes’s debt — he at least should have sent a fruit basket (for real, no bombs included) for creating so much financial and political space for the expansion of his violence.

Iran is just one area where Rhodes’s foreign policy commentary lacks credibility. For example, consider this, from a few days ago.

Surely, Trump at least deserves credit for trying to reach an agreement with Kim — whatever his failures, they have left us no worse off than before, when the Obama administration was ignoring the problem. And surely, a former top U.S. government official shouldn’t be crowing with partisan excitement over the possibility of a diplomatic failure.

Rhodes accomplished next to nothing during his time at the apex of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Well, I take that back: Rhodes’s led Obama’s outreach to the Burmese junta, a move that legitimized a despicable regime while doing nothing to prevent its murder of tens of thousands of Rohingya civilians, and the displacement of millions more.

Rhodes also masterminded Obama’s supplication to Cuba. That move strengthened the Communist dictatorship without extracting any significant improvements to its human rights policy. Indeed, ironically, considering Rhodes’s Twitter reference to Venezuela, the new wealth that Obama’s Cuba policy brought to the Castro clique has allowed it to reinforce Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuelan dictatorship in Caracas. Cuba’s brutal security services are central in ensuring that the Venezuelan military remains tied to Maduro. In contrast, Trump administration sanctions pressure is now encouraging Cuba to reassess its support for tyranny.

On Russia, Rhodes spent Obama’s presidency constantly figuring out new ways to avoid holding Vladimir Putin to account. Rhodes was never able to figure out the Russian civilian targeting strategy in Syria, even though it was blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain, let alone someone with the very highest security clearance. Nor was the great guru willing to confront Russia’s election interference strategy, fearing escalation.

Oh, and when it came to Russia’s downing of the MH-17 passenger airliner over Ukraine, Rhodes supported the Obama administration’s betrayal of our allies.

On China, also, Rhodes was weak. The Obama administration entered office with a China unsure of how America would respond to its expansionism. It left office with a China that had seized vast areas of international waters, bought off American allies, insinuated the world’s greatest signal intelligence platform into common use, and had thrown millions of its own people into concentration camps.

But hey, at least Obama got Xi Jinping’s word that he would stop stealing U.S. intellectual property. Right? Even if that commitment was patently disingenuous, it at least gave Rhodes some good headlines.

Well, perhaps Shadi Hamid sums it up best.