The United States under the Obama Administration isn't willing to do what's necessary to protect Iraq's security, but we've known that since 2011 (if not earlier) when Obama failed to reach a status of forces agreement to keep a U.S. military presence there.
So with Iraq under intensifying threat from Al Qaeda-backed ISIS, hmm, let's see, who might we be willing to lean on for help rather than just using our vastly capable forces to do the job ourselves? Know what? Iran would be terrific to work with!
"Let's see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements," he said.
But he went on to say that the he "wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability."
"I think we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together -- the integrity of the country -- and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart," Kerry said.
Now what price to you suppose Iran might exact in exchange for their help in Iraq? It seems to me there is this little matter of a certain nuclear program that the Iranians would very much like to complete without any further opposition from the United States. Not that Obama and Kerry are very committed to stopping it anyway, but an Iranian effort to beat back ISIS could have the twin benefits of increasing Iran's influence in Iraq while simultaneously earning an unofficial/official green light to finish up those nuclear missiles that could present an existential threat to our ally Israel.
The only good news here is that Obama and Kerry can't control Benjamin Netanyahu.
But if the Iranians are hoping for gratitude from John Kerry for working with us as a coalition partner, they are almost certain to be disappointed. He is not a very grateful man when it comes to the efforts of U.S. allies, in case you had forgotten:
What a jerk. It's bad enough that he's Secretary of State but thank God this guy never became president.
