One of the
roles of the State Department is the protection of Americans living and
traveling abroad. John Kerry, as Secretary of State is the head of this agency.
Yet in
September of 2012 the State Department failed to accomplish this protection as Ambassador Chris Stevens, and four other Americans were gunned down in Benghazi under the watch of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Unfortunately again the Department and John Kerry are again failing to protect
Americans abroad as the plight of Saeed Adedini, an imprisoned American in
Iran, goes unheeded. As nuclear negotiations with Iran are set to move forward,
Saeed has been left behind in a dangerous third world prison. Saeed's imprisonment and treatment (including torture) are violations of human rights--and he is not the only one in this situation as several other Americans are also imprisoned.
If the
current negotiations with Iran (headed by Mr. Kerry) cannot include the release
of one or two American prisoners then one must wonder just how effect those negotiations are. John Kerry
believes he can negotiate the cessation of Iran’s illicit nuclear activities.
If he cannot, or will not advocate for the release of at least one American what makes the world believe he can
negotiate a nuclear treaty? What is easier to accomplish: the negotiation of
the release of a few Americans, or the negotiation of the cessation and
dismantlement of an entire secretive and illegal nuclear program?
Conversely,
if Iran continues to refuse Saeed’s release and humane treatment then this suggests there is little reason to trust that they will do something that demands more effort--as in the wholesale disassembly of their uranium centrifuges. Again, what is easier to do? Release a few
political dissidents, or shut down an entire uranium enrichment program?
This
suggests that neither John Kerry nor the Iranians have any legitimacy at the
negotiating table. It is likely Kerry either will not or cannot accomplish the release of
Saeed. He is either powerless to do
so, or willfully weak on the issue. There will likely be no consequences for
Iran’s illegal detention and torture of Saeed, yet Kerry would have the world believe that he bears the power to coerce a jihadist
and terrorist sponsoring state to bend its nuclear will to the international
community. Yet all the while Kerry has been part of an administration that is
rolling back sanctions on Iran in exchange for nothing at all. In light of
this and recent events in Syria, the idea of enforceable consequences is
somewhat laughable.
Likewise,
Iran itself is also lacking in legitimacy with its human rights failures, and
willful violations of Saeed’s human rights. Iran’s suppression of its own
people and press, anti-Semitic rhetoric, Holocaust denial, and carte blanche
funding of terrorism in Syria and Lebanon utterly shred any semblance of a
notion that the nation would comply to a nuclear standard. There have been
increasingly few consequences for their other sins. In the face of a weak and
compromising administration, what have they to fear for their current sins?
Iran’s leadership already believes
it is more powerful than the United States leadership, and has said as much.
Given the recent method of “red lines without consequences” as embraced by the
US, their bravado is somewhat warranted. As Saeed is still imprisoned and the uranium centrifuges keep spinning, the United States is
woefully (and perhaps willfully) powerless to stop either evil from continuing
on its merry way.
