Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Jay Leno: AP Replaces 'Illegal Immigrant' With 'Undocumented Democrat' | Main | Are Communists in the Thick of the Immigration "Reform" Movement? »

April 3, 2013

Re: 'AP: Obama An Appeaser On Iran?'

Topics: Iran

An alarming, almost frightening, implication via the AP on Barack Obama's reluctance to intervene in Syria ... that his reluctance in Syria isn't about the risks and dangers of intervention, or about the difficulties in distinguishing between the 'good' rebels and terrorists and radicals linked to Al-Qaeda, or even about concerns over Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule. It is because he is so naive as to have another reason for standing back as Syria bleeds: he's "hoping" that American restraint on Syria will persuade Iran to give up on nuclear weapons.

As Walter Russel Meade aptly points out at the link:

There are plenty of good reasons to fight shy of involvement in Syria; trying to get on Iran's good side by letting Assad murder his people with impunity isn't one of them. It's a grotesquely immoral sacrifice of the innocent on the altar of a terrible policy idea. Trying to please the mullahs by giving them their way in Syria would be like trying to quiet Adolf Hitler by giving him the Sudetenland. It would be appeasement, and it would be as dishonorable as it is futile.

[...] Tehran, unfortunately, will not be moved by this overture, at least not moved in the way some might hope. The reaction is likely to be much colder: they would read a policy choice like this as abject and craven, as a sign of desperation and retreat.

Much more on this here.

Memo to Barack Obama: Attempting to appease the mullahs is both futile and dangerous. Continuing to attempt to maintain an illusion of progress isn't fooling Iran, and it's not even fooling to American people. The mullahs' men keep raising their bar ... and appropriately assume the naive, appeaser-in-chief will respond by continuing to lowering his. As Michael Goodwin has noted, such was the case with Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time" speech, when he returned to London after ceding part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, marked both the start and end of his capitulation.

[...] In fact, Chamberlain and others had been giving ground to Hitler for years, including the annexation of Austria. Every time Hitler raised his demands, Chamberlain lowered his. Every time Hitler issued an ultimatum, he got rewarded.

Continual appeasement only delayed a reckoning, and gave Hitler the time to expand German might and planning.

Indeed, within six months of Chamberlain's "peace for our time" boast, Hitler had gobbled up all of Czechoslovakia and then turned to Poland.

The Iran of today is not the Germany of 1938. But in one key respect, it could be more dangerous.

A nuclear-armed Iran will trigger a nuke race in the region, and might well provoke a nuclear war. That, at least, is the prediction of some American and Israeli intelligence experts. That frightening scenario will not disappear because of wishing and hoping.

Obama, for now, shares Iran's goal of stalling an Israeli strike. .

[...] He might succeed, if only because Iran is eager to pocket the concession of time as it doggedly enriches more uranium to higher grades.

But sooner or later, this president, or the next one, will have to answer the question: Now what?

History shows that, when dealing with madmen, later is usually worse than sooner.

And as the AP points out, Churchill said that Britain and France had to choose between dishonor and war in the 1938 Czech crisis. They chose dishonor, and will got war. This is exactly what Barack Obama is doing, and will get. Unfortunately, it's the American and Israeli people that will pay the price for Obama's dishonor and naivité.

Posted by Hyscience at April 3, 2013 7:32 AM



Articles Related to Iran: