Yesterday, Jewish Current Issues reviewed the new book by Ambassador John Bolton, “Surrender is not an option.” Among other things, he summarizes last years negotiations over Resolution 1701 ending the Israel-Hezbollah war
He makes it clear it was — to be diplomatic — not a stellar performance by the State Department. Ultimately, he writes, the resolution left a situation in which “it became increasingly clear that there was not going to be another resolution to disarm Hezbollah, that the arms embargo was not being enforced, that Hezbollah was rearming, and that ‘enhanced UNIFIL’ looked and acted much like the existing, ineffective UNIFIL.â€
Today’s Wall Street Journal has a longer review written by Brendan Simms, focusing more on Iran and efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Ahmadinejad and company. It appears that diplomacy is just effective in that case as it was with Resolution 1701
Much more worrying is Mr. Bolton’s account of European policy on Tehran’s nuclear program. The policy started as a well-meant attempt to avoid military confrontation by persuading the Iranians to abandon their plans peacefully. At almost every stage along the way, however, the French, British and German negotiators were hoodwinked by the Iranians, who later gloated over the deceptions they had been allowed to get away with. Far from holding all this against Iran, the Europeans — or “Euroids,” as Mr. Bolton calls them — tended to vent their frustration on Mr. Bolton and America’s supposed intransigence. Thus the British representative to the Security Council is quoted as being “so tired of having to go out in front of those damned cameras and explain why we gave up on this or conceded on that.” Far and away the most feeble performance is put in by the envoy from Berlin, who reflexively gives the Iranians the benefit of the doubt, crediting their claims of peaceful intentions. The Germans of all people should care about nuclear weapons in the hands of a maniac such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the destruction of Israel. Their diplomats at the U.N. should not be making excuses for an Iranian nuclear program that is plainly intended for military purposes.
It does not appear that Mr. Bolton was a very diplomatic diplomat. Unfortunately he is no longer toiling at the UN trying to bring some sanity to the asylum. Simms describes Bolton’s view of the UN like this
Mr. Bolton often finds himself in a fantasy-fueled Munchkinland in which all the problems of the Middle East are blamed on Israel and the Iranian quest for a nuclear bomb is either denied or ignored — or justified as a legitimate response to U.S. and Zionist hegemony.
If you doubt that, read the late Jeane Kirkpatrick’s How the PLO was legitimized and you’ll see why (among things) the term “international law” is little more than a bad joke.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
