Iran deal is Obama's Munich

The nuclear deal with Iran smacks of appeasement

November 25, 2013

The big foreign policy story over the weekend was the Obama administration's agreement, along with five other nations, of a sweeping arms deal with Iran that involved Iran agreeing to a freeze of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from U.S. sanctions and the ability to sell some of its oil on the international market.
There's one small problem with the administration's deal: it just made war in the Middle East more, not less, likely.
The deal, as it stands now, is merely a temporary freeze. Iran is not dismantling its program, nor is it transferring its nuclear technology or nuclear materials out of Iran. It is merely stopping its nuclear program in its tracks ... if you believe that Iran is going to hold up its end of the bargain.  Seventy-five years ago, four countries met in Munich, Germany to discuss peace and security in Europe. The Munich Pact has become infamous in the world of international relations and security as an act of appeasement toward a military power, subscribing to an uncompromising ideology, that threatened to disrupt the international order through belligerence and aggression. In that agreement, the European powers agreed to allow Germany to annex the Sudetenland and continue its policy of Lebensraum across Europe. At the time of the arrangement, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain infamously said "I believe it is peace in our time."
Less than a year later, the world was at war.
So too does this nuclear deal with Iran provide the Obama administration and the rest of the world with the idea that there is peace in our time, with no real evidence that Iran is at all interested in peace. Up to this time, Iran has had no interest in limiting its nuclear capability for any reason whatsoever, even when previous administrations have not ruled out the idea of force. There is no reason why Iran has now all of a sudden lost interest in abandoning its nuclear ambitions in order to come to an agreement with western powers.   On the other hand Iran, like many totalitarian dictatorships, is interested in U.S. currency, U.S. commerce, and the capability of selling its oil internationally. Naturally the regime is interested in trying to obtain access to the international marketplace by hook or by crook.
Which of course makes us ask an important question: Do you really think Iran is freezing their nuclear weapons program? Has Iran really earned the trust of the free wold to assume that it will not be working in secret to advance its nuclear ambitions anyway, regardless of any deal? Do you really think that a nation which has been, just as an example, increasing its sponsorship of terrorism, really somebody who can be trusted with this type of nuclear deal? While those in the Obama administration think that the Iranian regime has earned that level of trust, those in Iran's neighborhood are reacting in a much different light:
In Israel: "The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, on Sunday called the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran "an exceedingly bad deal", as he intensified his campaign to convince world powers to toughen terms ahead of fresh negotiations this week.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.