The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing yesterday on “U.S. Strategy on Iran.” In his opening statement, Chairman John Kerry began by striking a note of realism:

[W]e must be honest with ourselves: we will not solve this problem just by talking directly to Tehran. While Iran was just talking to the IAEA and the Europeans, it deftly sidestepped every supposed red-line laid down by the international community.

Then he proposed that the “international community” lay down another red line:

Iran’s leaders need to understand that the full weight of the international community will come down on them if Iran continues to defy the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. . . .

For diplomacy to succeed, we will need the full backing of our allies in Europe as well as Russia, China and other countries that trade extensively with Iran. We must quickly engage with those countries and construct a robust, sustainable strategy. . . .

In short, we need to act boldly, wisely, and quickly with our allies and partners to win agreement on the way forward, and to engage Iran backed by real consequences for its continued noncompliance.

It was a triumph of adjectival diplomacy:  a “robust, sustainable” strategy, with “real” consequences, involving the “full” weight of the international community, with “full” backing for the strategy from every relevant country in the world, leading to actions that are “bold, wise and quick.”

Kerry’s words are not likely to produce concern in Iran, which will read his statement as another indication the U.S. is not prepared to act on its own, nor ultimately to use force (Kerry’s statement did not even include the previously standard reference to all options remaining on the table), and that President Obama’s reference to Iranian nuclear weapons as “unacceptable” can safely be considered just another adjective.