Jeffrey Goldberg's newly published book-length article on Barack Obama and the Middle East includes a major revelation that brings Secretary of State John Kerry's Syrian diplomacy into sharper focus: it reports that Kerry has sought on several occasions without success over the past several months to get Obama's approval for cruise missile strikes against the Syrian government.
That revelation shows that Kerry's strategy in promoting the Syrian peace negotiations in recent months was based on much heavier pressure on the Assad regime to agree that President Bashar al-Assad must step down than was apparent. It also completes a larger story of Kerry as the primary advocate in the administration of war in Syria ever since he became Secretary of State in early 2013.
Goldberg reports that "on several occasions" Kerry requested that Obama approve missile strikes at "specific regime targets," in order to "send a message" to Assad - and his international allies - to "negotiate peace." Kerry suggested to Obama that the U.S. wouldn't have to acknowledge the attacks publicly, according to Goldberg, because Assad "would surely know the missiles' return address."
Comment: Nothing says "peace" like bombing the hell out of someone, someplace.
Goldberg reports that Kerry had "recently" submitted a "written outline of new steps to bring more pressure on Assad." That is obviously a reference to what Kerry referred to in Senate testimony in February as "significant discussions" within the Obama administration on a "Plan B" to support the opposition that would be more "confrontational." Kerry made no effort in his testimony to hide the fact that he was the chief advocate of such a policy initiative.
Comment: Is Kerry a hard-nosed tool for AIPAC, a fanatic war hawk like McCain, a pathological liar like Hillary or really Obama's alter-ego? Maybe all of the above, but certainly not a diplomat. Real diplomacy and real negotiations can never come from a place of pointless provocations, unprovoked military force, deliberate destruction and reckless massacres. More of the same does not change anything - it creates war without end. But to some, it is perceived as an advantage.