So now we not only have to potentially contend with a poorly negotiated and subsequent bad deal which will do nothing but appease Iran – but now, if John Kerry has his way, we will end up negotiating with Iran's wicked stepchild Syria.  

Mail Online reported that Kerry told CBS News regarding Syria that "We have to negotiate in the end."

Of course you do, John, because that's all you know how to do. You suck at it, but that's all you know. However, diplomacy without strength doesn't work. Certainly diplomacy with an enemy doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work without one important ingredient. Funny thing about an enemy – you need first to beat them into submission so that they will then submit to negotiation.

The only other way to negotiate absent actual armed conflict is for the other party to think that if they don't negotiate, you will in fact beat them into submission. Neither the Mullahs in Iran nor Assad in Syria believe this to be the case, and for good reason. I'm certain they both know they're dealing or would be dealing with a couple of paper tigers in Obama and Kerry.

"What we're pushing for is to get him (Assad) to come and do that, and it may require that there be increased pressure on him of various kinds in order to do that," Kerry stated.

That's diplomatic code for we are desperately searching for a way to buy Assad off so he will leave without a fuss and we can claim victory – however brief.

I say however brief because the exit of Assad will once again leave a vacuum of power in a region already filled with Hoovers or Dysons (pick your favorite brand of vacuum).

But none of these realities will deter Mr. Diplomacy from negotiating away yet more of Israel's and our own safety.

In one respect I agree with Senator Rand Paul who recently stated that "There's no one in Washington more against war and more for a negotiated deal than I am, but I want the negotiated deal to be a good deal."

I agree about the no war part. No one in their right mind ever wants to go to war. My kids are coming of age and I'll be damned if I want them shipped off to go fight over in that hell hole – not under this Commander in Chief.

But do none of these politicians, Rand Paul included, understand that you can't negotiate with evil - at least not without the credible threat of their annihilation?

The fact is that with the Islamic State growing, Assad is actually in a stronger position than he was and with the U.S. and others bombing ISIS, it only helps him. He has played this rather well, setting himself up to look the moderate of the two. I wrote about this last August. You may review it here.

So why announce negotiations with Assad now?

Could it be that Obama and Kerry know the Iran deal is already a done deal (from their prospective) and will pave the way for a deal with Assad? Could this be another part of Obama's legacy endgame - to have "peace in our time" with both Iran and its surrogate Syria? I wouldn't put it past them? Could Obama and Kerry really be that naïve? Why yes – yes they can. Actually, I think it is less naivety than it is arrogance. These two really do think they are smarter than everyone else and therefore are the only ones who can pull this off.

The reality is that Kerry can talk all he likes but there will never be a diplomatic solution to the Iran or Syrian situation. But that won't prevent the administration from making a deal. 

I hate to say, but in that region of the world, it's been proven over and over that the only ones capable of keeping a lid on the Islamists are ruthless dictators. It sucks for the people of Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc., but consider the current alternative. Given the choice, however bleak, I'd bet those poor people, in retrospect, would choose Hussein and Gaddafi over the Islamist murderers.

And if Assad goes, within a year or two, the people of Syria will probably think the same.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.