William (Bill) Kristol is signaling he is in this fight to
the bitter end. He published: “The Kerry Guarantee,” an article that appeared
on May 8, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. In it, the author makes the general
point that “there can be no guarantee – let alone an absolute guarantee – that
we will know everything the Iranian regime is doing in its effort to acquire
nuclear weapons technology.”
Had he stopped here, he would have sounded like a level
headed man stating the obvious, a point upon which he intends to build a case
that will most probably sound reasonable and worthy of consideration in any
rational debate that may ensue. But Kristol did not stop here. Instead, he went
on to say what follows: “This would be the case even if Kerry were able to
secure a thoroughgoing and intrusive inspections regime, which he is not.”
What this means is that Kerry or no Kerry, it is absolutely
impossible to make certain that “we” shall be able to tell what the Iranians are
doing in the nuclear field from the moment that every Iranian who is working on
the project gets up in the morning, till they all go to bed at night … (and not
even dream about their work?). So you wonder in the quiet of your thoughts: if
this is the case, what's the point of the Kristol presentation?
You search the article for an answer but find no direct
answer to your question. However, you stumble on a passage that tells you what
William Kristol is attempting to do. You read it and get the sense he is
putting down an argument by which he hopes to set up the readers for a spoof.
Here is how he begins that argument: “one could imagine a sophisticated case
for a not-fully-reassuring deal, made by a more sophisticated negotiator than
John Kerry.” Removing Kerry from the picture in this manner is step one on the
way to achieving his goal.
As for step two, Kristol mentions a probability and not the
certainty of catching the Iranians red-handed. He says this: “we'll probably
pick up cheating once it's been going for a while.” But what if we don't? He
does not answer this question … but before you get to ask it, he throws a
distraction that takes your attention away from it: “and, as Clint Eastwood put
it, 'If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.'” Now certain that he got you off
the track, he delivers a coup de grace to Kerry and to his project: “But we
don't have a serious negotiator. We have John Kerry. So the deal will be
catastrophic. And the defense of it will be dishonest.” And he wants you to
believe he is being honest.
You still want to know what he believes a good deal would
look like. And again, you comb his article to see if there is an indication of
that. But all you find is the mention of an attempt by a handful of senators
that got nowhere: “That's why a group of senators fought to strengthen the
Corker-Cardin legislation – seeking to add to it standards that would make
clear what an acceptable deal would be.” They failed, he says, and he blames
Corker, the Democrats and senior Republicans who displayed no general urgency
“about acting to stop a bad Iran
deal.”
And this is where Kristol betrays himself. First, he does
not give a hint as to how the group of senators wished to modify the
legislation. In fact, there was nothing worthy of mention which is why the
senators failed. Second, he clearly states that the intent was to stop the
deal. He does so by admitting that those senators were not there trying to
improve on the deal, they were there “acting to stop it.”
Being the resolute fanatic that he is, he refuses to give up
at this point, and goes on to tell of plans for a continued attempt at killing
the deal: “What is crucial now is that opponents of a nuclear Iran focus on the
fundamental task: preventing – or laying the groundwork for defeating – a deal
that paves the way toward an Iran whose economy will be strengthened with
sanctions removed.”
He now demonstrates, one last time, the burlesque side of
his personality: “For our part, we 'absolutely guarantee' that if there is no
further effort to rally opposition to this deal until after it's signed, it
will be too late … The fight goes on … it is a fight for a secure Israel.” And
he closes: “The battle over Corker-Cardin may be over. The fight to stop the Iran deal has
just begun.”