John Kerry’s Iran Critique: Same old, same old. Just STFU already!

Leave a CommentJohn Kerry’s Iran Critique: Same old, same old. Just STFU already!Commentary

John Kerry’s latest salvo against President Donald Trump, delivered on June 23, 2025, during a CNN interview, reveals a familiar pattern of sanctimonious second-guessing from a figure whose diplomatic legacy is tethered to the controversial 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Criticizing Trump’s decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—Kerry framed the strikes as a reckless escalation, born of Trump’s abandonment of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Yet Kerry’s remarks, which went viral for their perceived disconnect, sidestep the realities of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the strategic necessity of Trump’s action, while rehashing a failed appeasement strategy that emboldened Tehran.

Kerry’s critique centered on two points: that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities was unnecessary because the JCPOA had constrained its program, and that the strikes could empower Iran’s hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), destabilizing the region further. He argued that the 2015 deal, which he helped negotiate as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, was the “tightest nuclear control deal ever made,” preventing Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, Kerry claimed, unraveled this framework, leading to the circumstances that “justified” the June 2025 strikes. He further suggested that bombing doesn’t erase the “memory” of nuclear know-how, implying the strikes were futile since Iran could rebuild its program.

These arguments crumble under scrutiny. The JCPOA, far from being a bulwark against Iran’s nuclear threat, was riddled with flaws. It allowed Iran to retain significant enrichment capabilities, with restrictions on centrifuges and uranium stockpiles set to expire after 10-15 years. By 2025, Iran had amassed 880 pounds of 60%-enriched uranium—close to weapons-grade—far exceeding civilian needs. The deal’s intrusive inspections were limited, with Iran blocking access to key sites, as reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Trump’s withdrawal, while criticized by allies, exposed Iran’s bad faith, as Tehran accelerated enrichment after 2018, edging closer to a bomb. Kerry’s claim that the deal “worked” ignores this trajectory, which culminated in Israel’s week-long bombing campaign against Iran’s air defenses and nuclear sites, prompting Trump’s strikes to finish the job.
Kerry’s assertion that bombing can’t destroy nuclear expertise is equally misguided. While technical knowledge persists, the strikes devastated Iran’s physical infrastructure—Fordow’s deeply buried facility was hit with six GBU-57 “bunker buster” bombs, and Natanz and Isfahan were targeted with 30 Tomahawk missiles. Israel’s prior elimination of Iran’s nuclear scientists and archives, combined with these attacks, has set back Iran’s program by years, if not decades. The mullahs can’t simply “Google” their way back to a bomb, as Kerry’s critics on social media quipped. His suggestion that the strikes empower the IRGC is laughable; the IRGC already dominates Iran’s decision-making, enforcing the Ayatollah’s will. Kerry’s tired narrative of “moderate” Iranian factions waiting to be appeased echoes Obama-era naivety, which yielded $100 billion in sanctions relief to fund Iran’s proxy wars.
Trump’s decision to strike, announced on June 21, 2025, was a calculated response to Iran’s refusal to negotiate a new deal. Despite Kerry’s insinuations, Trump initially sought diplomacy, offering Iran a two-month window to discuss dismantling its enrichment program. When Tehran rebuffed this, Trump, impressed by Israel’s success in eroding Iran’s defenses, authorized a limited operation involving over 125 U.S. aircraft, including B-2 stealth bombers. The strikes, coordinated with Israel, avoided civilian targets and aimed to cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions without sparking a broader war. Trump’s subsequent push for a phased ceasefire, announced on June 23, underscored his intent to de-escalate, despite Iran’s retaliatory missile salvo against a U.S. base in Qatar.
Kerry’s criticism conveniently ignores his own questionable conduct. During Trump’s first term, he met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif multiple times, including three or four meetings in 2017-2018, raising accusations of violating the Logan Act by undermining U.S. policy. Trump repeatedly called for Kerry’s prosecution, alleging he advised Iran to “wait out” the administration. While no charges were filed, Kerry’s backchannel diplomacy fueled perceptions of disloyalty, especially given his strident defense of a deal that enriched Iran while constraining U.S. leverage. His 2021 denial of leaking Israeli strike details to Zarif, amid a leaked tape suggesting otherwise, further eroded his credibility.
As Iran weighs its response and the ceasefire holds tenuously, Kerry’s viral meltdown serves as a reminder of why his approach lost favor. Trump’s gamble, while risky, has reset the strategic calculus, forcing Iran to confront the consequences of its defiance. Kerry’s nostalgia for the JCPOA may comfort progressive elites, but it rings hollow against the hard realities of a nuclear-armed Iran. The former Secretary of State’s critique is less a policy argument than a lament for a world where appeasement passed for strength—a world Trump’s actions have decisively left behind.