Story highlights Aaron David Miller: John Kerry issued clear warning over Israeli settlement enterprise

But Kerry's speech largely and rightly refrained from setting out detailed parameters on the issues, Miller writes

Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and author of "The End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want) Another Great President." Miller was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. Follow him @aarondmiller2. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

(CNN) Reaction from the key players to Secretary of State John Kerry's speech, in which he laid out the Obama administration's position on Arab-Israeli peacemaking, has been swift. And in some cases harsh. But to better understand the potential significance of what Kerry said, it's worth taking a step back.

And, having written my fair share of speeches for Republican and Democratic secretaries of state on this issue, I would argue that there are four key questions that need to be asked to better understand how we got here -- and where we might be going.

Why John Kerry?

Clearly, a decision was made to make this a Kerry rather than a Barack Obama speech. Previous presidents have attached their names to peace plans and initiatives (see the 1982 Reagan Initiative and the 2000 Clinton parameters, the latter of which is still a vital part of the negotiating record).

But having just authorized an abstention on a controversial resolution at the United Nations, I have to figure the President was quite content to allow the Secretary of State to take the next hit. And given Kerry's "Energizer Bunny" drive to try and resolve the conflict, it was both natural and appropriate. Indeed, the speech was a passionate, personal and at times angry statement from a man who believes deeply that the two-state solution is dying and that US, Israeli and Palestinian interests will suffer if it's not somehow rescued.

Read More