H.L. Mencken, the twentieth-century American journalist, satirist, and cultural critic, noted that “for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” His pithy observation prophetically described President Jimmy Carter, who has died at the age of 100. 

Although he lived for more than a century, Carter’s legacy is unlikely to last nearly as long — because time and again, when faced with complex problems, he reached for clear and simple solutions that turned out to be disastrously wrong.

History’s verdict on Carter is hardly mixed—it leans heavily toward disaster, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. While he may have meant well, his penchant for moralizing in a way that bordered on patronizing, and his insistence on prioritizing ideals over reality, made him a pioneer of the kind of weakness that Barack Obama later perfected with his “leading from behind” doctrine. Carter’s America didn’t lead from behind—it just didn’t lead at all.

The fallout? A Middle East that’s been on fire ever since.

Carter’s most consequential failure was Iran. By abandoning the Shah and allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to step through the front door with his fanatical Islamic revolution, Carter handed the world over to radical Islamists. Khomeini didn’t just take over Iran—he ignited a revolutionary flame that still burns today. 

October 7th, the deliberate and eagerly executed Hamas massacre of 1,200 innocent Israelis in Southern Israel, an evil atrocity that sent shockwaves through Israel and across the world, is just one link in the chain of chaos that Jimmy Carter helped to forge. Iran’s terror tentacles—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis—all trace their origins to the regime Carter allowed to flourish. 

The vile Assad regime in Syria, now deposed, with as yet unknown chaos following in its wake, also owed its longevity to support from the regime that came into being as a result of Carter’s inadequate response when he could have cut it off before it took root.

In a 2014 interview on CNBC, Carter admitted, “I could have been re-elected if I had taken military action against Iran. It would have shown that I was strong and resolute and manly… I could have wiped Iran off the map with the weapons that we had. But in the process, a lot of innocent people would have been killed, probably including the hostages.” 

What an admission! Look how many innocent people have died and been repressed as a result of his ivory tower moral stance. As Churchill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.”

Many commentators have pointed to the fact that Carter presided over the historic Camp David Accords, but let’s be clear: while he played a significant role as a facilitator, the deal ultimately succeeded because Sadat and Begin were pragmatic men who understood their people needed peace more than platitudes. 

Carter’s vision leaned heavily toward Palestinian autonomy, and had he gotten his way, Israel might have faced greater pressure to concede to PLO demands. Instead, the actual treaty focused on Israel-Egypt relations, and Carter, despite his moralizing, was fortunate to share credit for a deal rooted in the leaders’ pragmatism rather than his ideology. 

And, as former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren put it in his article about Carter’s legacy, “No sooner were the Camp David Accords signed in 1979 than Carter embarked on a 40-year smear campaign against Israel.”

And in his post-presidency, things only got worse. Instead of acting as a neutral go-between and peace facilitator for Israel and the Palestinians, Carter transformed himself into the elder statesman of global finger-wagging. He seemed determined to lecture Israel at every opportunity, portraying it as the primary obstacle to peace, while cozying up to arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat—a man whose organization, the PLO, had the blood of countless Israelis on its hands. 

Carter didn’t stop there. In 2008, he went out of his way to meet in Syria with leaders of Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and Israel. Carter defended the visit as an attempt at peace-building, but in reality, it gave Hamas a veneer of legitimacy it neither earned nor deserved. 

Carter compounded his betrayal of Israel by introducing the word “Apartheid” to describe Israel’s treatment of Arabs—an obscene accusation with no basis in reality, and one he surely knew was both false and inflammatory. 

Rather than contributing to peace, Carter’s self-proclaimed moral high ground quickly eroded into a moral swamp, enabling some of the world’s most dangerous actors while undermining America’s closest ally in the Middle East. Instead of securing his place in history as a peacemaker, Carter’s post-presidency cast him as a sanctimonious meddler whose actions deepened divides rather than bridging them.

There was undoubtedly a good side to Carter—his Habitat for Humanity project, which built thousands of affordable homes for Americans who couldn’t afford expensive property, showed that he genuinely cared about people. He was willing to roll up his sleeves—literally!—and get to work for those in need. It was a touching example of his personal decency and desire to make a tangible difference in people’s lives.

Carter wasn’t a bad man—he was just a bad president. Idealism, while admirable, often walks hand-in-hand with naivety. And naivety, especially in leadership, allows evil to flourish—even when the intentions are noble. Carter believed deeply in human rights, but he had no idea how to protect them. He believed in peace—which all good people do—but he mistook appeasement for diplomacy. Worst of all, he failed to grasp a harsh truth: giving bad people slack doesn’t make them better—it just gives them room to harm the innocent.

And that’s the crux of the problem. The world Carter left us is more dangerous, not less, because he gave evil a foothold—and then had the audacity to call it progress.

In the end, Carter’s legacy is a cautionary tale. Good intentions aren’t enough. Leadership means knowing when to stand firm, when to draw red lines, and when to stop pretending that the world’s villains can be reasoned with. Carter never learned that lesson. And the world is still paying the price.

The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.

The post The Cautionary Tale of Jimmy Carter first appeared on Algemeiner.com.