web analytics
March 1, 2015 / 10 Adar , 5775
At a Glance
Sponsored Post

Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

Iran and Munich: a Fair Comparison?

Like Chamberlain, Obama sued the ayatollahs for peace, insisting the only alternative to appeasement is war.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

Since Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama announced the nuclear deal with Iran, outrage over what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rightly termed a “historic mistake” has been intense, especially among supporters of Israel.

That has led some observers to invoke comparisons with the 1938 Munich agreement in which the Western powers betrayed Czechoslovakia in an attempt to appease Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

The question of whether Munich should be mentioned in the same breath as the agreement signed in Geneva was discussed recently by Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Bret Stephens in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column. According to Stephens, the deal Obama is claiming as a triumph for diplomacy is “worse than Munich.”

Is he right? Whether you think the deal is as bad as Stephens thinks or whether the price of a mistake with Iran is as costly as the West’s miscalculations about Hitler, the real answer depends on whether Iran betrays Obama.

As to the merits of the Iran deal, the facts are very much with Stephens in terms of the feckless nature of this diplomatic endeavor.

The agreement loosened sanctions and handed over billions in frozen cash to the Islamist regime while tacitly legitimizing the Iranian nuclear program. While administration supporters can claim the sanctions relief involves a fraction of the existing restrictions, they cannot claim that Iran’s supposed concessions do anything to roll back the nuclear progress Tehran has made in the last five years.

Instead of making the world, and Israel, safer, as Obama and Kerry have insisted, it makes it more likely that Iran will get a nuclear deal in the long run as well as heightening the chances of a Middle East arms race involving Saudi Arabia and new outbreaks of violence involving current and perhaps future Iranian allies like Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas.

Stephens also makes an important point when he speaks of Obama’s desire for détente with Iran as being far less defensible than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s decision to trust “Herr Hitler.” Britain and France were weak in 1938. It can, as Stephens points out, be argued that delaying the war with Germany by a year, during which Britain built up its military forces, hurt Hitler even if it did result in the annihilation of the Czechs.

Though appeasers might have been justified in thinking they had no better option in 1938 than to give in to Hitler, there is no comparable excuse available for Obama and Kerry. Iran is weaker than the West and its economy is, thanks to the sanctions Obama opposed and delayed implementing, in tatters.

Like Chamberlain and French President Edouard Daladier, Obama sued the ayatollahs for peace while saying the only alternative to appeasement was war. Though no one wants a war with Iran, the alternative was to toughen the sanctions and increase pressure on Iran and to at least demand that it begin dismantling the nuclear program.

Like the appeasers of 1938 who thought Hitler couldn’t be persuaded to back down and therefore must be given what he asked for, Obama gave in to Iranian demands because the Iranians insisted on them.

Iran is not the hegemonic power Nazi Germany was. Nor can it attack the West on equal or superior military terms as Germany did. But the assumption that Iran has no capability or desire to commit genocide is merely a matter of faith. Once the Iranians get a nuke – and it can be argued that the Iran deal is a bridge to a containment policy rather than one aimed at prevention – genocide or at least a war with incalculable consequences becomes a possibility.

Bad as the Iran deal was, the real analogy to Munich is the way in which Obama and Kerry not only ignored the concerns of the nations endangered by an Iranian nuke – Israel and Saudi Arabia – but also excluded them from the negotiations.

Like the Czechs who were told by Chamberlain they had no choice but to accept the dismemberment of their country, Israel and the Saudis have been callously told they can either like the deal or lump it.

It is an iron rule of debate that the first person to invoke the Holocaust usually loses, and in the eyes of some any talk about Munich is always going to be viewed as over the top no matter how strong the analogy might be.

That may be so, but the flipside of this argument is that the problem with the Iran deal is not what it means for the world today but what will follow from it. Opponents of the appeasers of 1938 were unable to convince grateful Britons who were overjoyed that war had been averted, no matter the cost, to listen to their warnings. They could point to the probable consequences but until Hitler marched into Prague, and then invaded Poland despite promising Chamberlain that he wouldn’t, it was just talk. So, too, are the critics of appeasing Iran powerless to do much to stop Obama’s policy until the Iranians prove them right.

Until that happens, Obama’s defenders can accuse Stephens and others like him of hyperbole and hysteria. But once Iran cheats on the deal and uses its weak terms to get closer to its nuclear ambition, critics of the agreement will sound a lot more credible even to liberals who are trying their best to ignore this debate.

At that point, as the world confronts a nuclear-armed state sponsor of terror run by Islamist fanatics, Stephens’s suggestion that Obama and Kerry are the same as the appeasers of Hitler, “minus the umbrellas,” will seem tame.

About the Author: Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of Commentary magazine and chief political blogger at www.commentarymagazine.com, where this first appeared. He can be reached via e-mail at jtobin@commentarymagazine.com.

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

6 Responses to “Iran and Munich: a Fair Comparison?”

  1. Rabbi Dr. Bernhard Rosenberg SAYS President Obama You Have Some Nerve. ISRAEL Will Not LISTEN To You : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig8c795KymA#t=63

    Trying to speak to Roosevelt behind closed doors didn't help the Jews of Europe, 6,000,000 Jews were slaughtered, murdered, burned, vanished!

    Speak Up!

    לנסות לדבר עם רוזוולט בדלתיים סגורים לא עזר ליהודי אירופה, 6,000,000 יהודים נטבחו, נרצחו, נשרפו, נעלמו!

    דברו בקול רם!


  2. Anonymous says:

    And when the nuclear rain falls on Saudi and hopefully never on Israel or when the war begins, will Obama and Kerry walk away as innocent, while millions die for their stupidity and desire to see the covenant land parted? Will they ever be tried for crimes against humanity? Probably not, they have too much money. Perhaps a reasonable government in the USA in the future run by reasonable men, not egotists and Israel haters, will hand them over to be tried one day in Israel.

  3. We should listen to people that have seen that coming and warned us -like Dr. Daniel Pipes among many othersthat had been there in more ways than President Obama and Kerry who ;praying that i 'm wrong;will go down in history as the 2013 Chamberlain Fiasco. thank you.

  4. Anonymous says:

    it is interesting that now every country is very concerned about Saudi Arabia. even Israel is worried about Saudis well being. just because Israel is in war with Iran it should not worry about the most un democratic regime in the world. Israel should keep its own security and watch over its own nuclear weapons and not worry about Iran. Iranian regime even though anti Israel , has no nuclear weapons and is not planning to make one. all this war talk may result in Iranians change their calculations and go build the bomb the same way that the Israelis did. so i would suggest to cool off all these war mongering and let people live in peace so that the Israelis can live in peace. stop saying Iranians commit genocide, this is done by Zionists against the Palestinians.

  5. Loren Gee says:

    Utter tripe – Iran has every intension of building nuclear weapons and has said so.

    Funniest genocide in the world going from some 700k to over 5 million – if that is genocide then you have a very strange definition.

  6. Loren Gee says:

    Utter tripe – Iran has every intension of building nuclear weapons and has said so.

    Funniest genocide in the world going from some 700k to over 5 million – if that is genocide then you have a very strange definition.

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Jewish Communal Fund Provides Millions To New Israel Fund
Latest Indepth Stories

Buried in the tax-returns of the JCF is millions of dollars funneled to NIF in the last few years.

Netanyahu in a previous address to Congress-

Bibi’s speech to Congress will bring respect and honor to the Jewish Nation from the US & the world


Obama & Putin have handwriting/signature clues indicating differences between public & private life

Councilman David Greenfield

It’s time for a new Jewish policy regarding Ramallah, NOT just because of the yarmulke incident

“GETT’s” being screened for Israeli Rabbinical Court judges at their annual convention.

If Jackson were alive he’d denounce Democratic party’s silence towards virulent anti-Semitism

Victim of Palestinian Arab terrorism, a victor in NY federal court, after years of being ignored by Justice Dept.

March 2013: Arabs hurled stones hitting the Biton’s car; Adele’s mother swerved the car-into a truck

The real issue is that in many respects the president has sought to recalibrate American values and our system of government.

Former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, provided one of the clearest and most compelling analyses we’ve seen of the importance of the prime minister’s speech.

A central concept in any discussion about happiness is achieving clarity. “Ain simcha ela k’hataras hasefeikos” – there is no joy as that experienced with the removal of doubt.

“Je Suis..,” like its famous origin 400 years ago, implies the ability & freedom to think & question

Many anti-Israel demonstrations at universities have a not-so-latent anti-Semitic agenda as well

More Articles from Jonathan S. Tobin

The abuse following publication proved a cautionary tale: no one followed in Peters’s footsteps

German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Jerusalem at the President's Residence, February 2014 (archive)

Anti-Semitism has returned to the mainstream of European society and Israel has become its focus.

One of the key talking points by apologists for Hamas in the current conflict is that it isn’t fair that Israelis under fire have bomb shelters while Palestinians in Gaza don’t have any. Among other factors, the lack of shelters accounts in part for the differences in casualty figures between the two peoples. But somehow […]

How will all this end? Hamas seems to think it will be Netanyahu who will blink first.

Nothing short of a stroke that will decapitate the leadership of this group will convince the Arabs that Hamas has made a mistake.

Z STREET will have the ability to compel IRS officials to testify as to their practices and produce all records.

“Death of Klinghoffer” opera frames the issue as Israel’s existence being the real crime.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/iran-and-munich-a-fair-comparison/2013/12/05/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: