Peace in Our Time?

Having just returned from a meeting with Hitler in Berlin, upon landing at Heston Aerodrome airport on September 30, 1938, Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, waved a paper and proudly proclaimed to a wildly enthusiastic crowd: “Peace for Our Time;” often misquoted as, “Peace in Our Time.”

The paper he was waving on that dank day 77 years ago infamously became known as the Munich Agreement.  A deal in which England and France disastrously sought to avoid war by dealing away territory from a third country not party to the negotiations; Czechoslovakia. It was agreed upon to appease the epitome of evil, Adolf Hitler.  It didn’t work then, it won’t work today.

Unfortunately, in this hip hop society many Americans and their elected representatives are oblivious to this historical lesson that after seven years would go on to cost the lives of an estimated 60 million people, including six million Jews.  Others that do are so ensconced in Democratic Party fealty they are blinded by the consequences this deal known as the JCPOA with Iran will have.  A deal that President Obama was so hell bent on shoving down the throats of the American people that he first went to the UN for ratification, rather than the Congress which was elected by them.

In what should be exceedingly obvious to all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, an American President, with every conceivable leverage has conceded all his advantage to a rogue regime that incessantly proclaims, “death to Israel,” “death to America.”  

Why President Obama hasn’t taken Iranian leadership at their word is a mystery only he alone knows the answer to.  Why this agreement is taken in vacuum to the nefarious actions of this terrorist, fascist cabal is another enigma.  Yet he takes scathing umbrage with those that vociferously oppose this “deal” as if it were your everyday partisan, political spat not potentially affecting generations of Americans to come.

At least it could be said of Chamberlain that he didn’t have historical precedent to go by, as both Kerry and Obama do.  During the era of the 1930’s many people actually believed a tyrant could be appeased.  The president and his secretary of state know better, or at least they should.

Furthermore, It should also be noted, Chamberlain did not release $150 billion dollars to Hitler to continue his monstrous ways as President Obama has done; he didn’t conclude his treaty without a parliamentary majority; he did not adopt a constitutionally suspect procedure enabling him to prevail with a one-third partisan minority.  He did not circumvent a Congress representing the people that elected him before seeking approval from a world body. Most importantly, Chamberlain did not negotiate a time-limited agreement and acknowledge it would put Germany in a position to prevail at the end of the agreement

As  Brett Stephens aptly states in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal in All the President’s Certitudes, Obama never concedes the possibility of being wrong:

Al Qaeda is “on a path to defeat” (2012); Bashar Assad ’s “days are numbered” (2011); “If you like your current insurance, you can keep that insurance;” (2009); Russia and the U.S. “are not simply resetting our relationship but also broadening it” (2010); Yemen is an example of a counterterrorist strategy “we have successfully pursued  for years” (2014).

Instead, He falls back upon his trademark approach of belittling opponents of his failed policies and excoriating even longtime, staunch supporters within his own party such as New York Senator Charles Schumer. 

Unable to defend the deal on its merits, a day after Schumer announced he would be in opposition he was greeted by the wrath of the president’s vitriol. Last Friday the White House warned that Democrats on Capitol Hill will remember his voting record upon deciding who will be their leader next year when Harry Reid retires.

So characteristic of the past 6 1/2 years, Obama saved most of his angst for his favorite whipping boy, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In a speech given last Wednesday he stated:  “This is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.”  Taking such quotes as code for anti-Semitism, Abraham Foxman the former president of the Anti-Defamation League and an ardent Obama supporter, has taken exception:  "To say Israelis are the only ones in the world opposed; it's troubling messaging.”

Most troubling, even if Israel were the only nation opposed to this preposterous deal, why shouldn’t they?  What other nation in the world is threatened with annihilation on a daily basis?  But it’s far from just an Israeli problem, as the president would like to dupe people into believing.  With all its inherent ramifications, no doubt Arab states in and around the Gulf, quaking in their boots, will soon kick off off a nuclear arms race of their own.

Every American should also be asking: If this is such a strong deal, why are the Iranians developing ICBM technology at breakneck speed? The Mullahs certainly don’t need ICBMs to hit Israel.  You would think the Brits, the French, and supporters of the deal here would be asking this question as well. Yet for reasons unexplained, U.S. negotiators acquiesced on demands restricting development of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting both Europe and the United States. 

In terms of enforcement, Obama has argued: “if Iran cheats, the world will know it,” and “if we see something suspicious, we will inspect it.” But, as Michael Makovsky correctly notes in the Weekly Standard, these inspections will not be intrusive enough to detect Iranian cheating or to thwart any breakout attempts in time.  And does anyone not living at 1600 Pennsylvania think they won't cheat or already haven’t?

Economic sanctions: The tool that was wrecking the Iranian economy and single handedly brought the Iranians to the negotiating table was lifted in exchange for limited restraints on their behavior.  Good luck on that one. 

Obama talks about being able to “snap back” sanctions.  Just more Pollyanna hyperbole from a man seemingly bereft of a grasp on reality.  With Russia ready to sell Iran S-300 missiles to tighten its air defenses and China ready to exchange nuclear power for oil, the re-imposition of sanctions by the 5+1 is a pipe dream.

Every aspect of this negotiation with a decades-long sworn enemy of the United States reeks of appeasement, but with far greater implications in today’s nuclear age than in 1938.  This deal is the child of a preposterous negotiation that defies credulity.  It’s the brainchild of two men either pathologically naive or having greater concern for legacy and prestige than the security of Americans today and generations hence.  This deal is anything but “Peace for Our Time.”

Having just returned from a meeting with Hitler in Berlin, upon landing at Heston Aerodrome airport on September 30, 1938, Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, waved a paper and proudly proclaimed to a wildly enthusiastic crowd: “Peace for Our Time;” often misquoted as, “Peace in Our Time.”

The paper he was waving on that dank day 77 years ago infamously became known as the Munich Agreement.  A deal in which England and France disastrously sought to avoid war by dealing away territory from a third country not party to the negotiations; Czechoslovakia. It was agreed upon to appease the epitome of evil, Adolf Hitler.  It didn’t work then, it won’t work today.

Unfortunately, in this hip hop society many Americans and their elected representatives are oblivious to this historical lesson that after seven years would go on to cost the lives of an estimated 60 million people, including six million Jews.  Others that do are so ensconced in Democratic Party fealty they are blinded by the consequences this deal known as the JCPOA with Iran will have.  A deal that President Obama was so hell bent on shoving down the throats of the American people that he first went to the UN for ratification, rather than the Congress which was elected by them.

In what should be exceedingly obvious to all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, an American President, with every conceivable leverage has conceded all his advantage to a rogue regime that incessantly proclaims, “death to Israel,” “death to America.”  

Why President Obama hasn’t taken Iranian leadership at their word is a mystery only he alone knows the answer to.  Why this agreement is taken in vacuum to the nefarious actions of this terrorist, fascist cabal is another enigma.  Yet he takes scathing umbrage with those that vociferously oppose this “deal” as if it were your everyday partisan, political spat not potentially affecting generations of Americans to come.

At least it could be said of Chamberlain that he didn’t have historical precedent to go by, as both Kerry and Obama do.  During the era of the 1930’s many people actually believed a tyrant could be appeased.  The president and his secretary of state know better, or at least they should.

Furthermore, It should also be noted, Chamberlain did not release $150 billion dollars to Hitler to continue his monstrous ways as President Obama has done; he didn’t conclude his treaty without a parliamentary majority; he did not adopt a constitutionally suspect procedure enabling him to prevail with a one-third partisan minority.  He did not circumvent a Congress representing the people that elected him before seeking approval from a world body. Most importantly, Chamberlain did not negotiate a time-limited agreement and acknowledge it would put Germany in a position to prevail at the end of the agreement

As  Brett Stephens aptly states in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal in All the President’s Certitudes, Obama never concedes the possibility of being wrong:

Al Qaeda is “on a path to defeat” (2012); Bashar Assad ’s “days are numbered” (2011); “If you like your current insurance, you can keep that insurance;” (2009); Russia and the U.S. “are not simply resetting our relationship but also broadening it” (2010); Yemen is an example of a counterterrorist strategy “we have successfully pursued  for years” (2014).

Instead, He falls back upon his trademark approach of belittling opponents of his failed policies and excoriating even longtime, staunch supporters within his own party such as New York Senator Charles Schumer. 

Unable to defend the deal on its merits, a day after Schumer announced he would be in opposition he was greeted by the wrath of the president’s vitriol. Last Friday the White House warned that Democrats on Capitol Hill will remember his voting record upon deciding who will be their leader next year when Harry Reid retires.

So characteristic of the past 6 1/2 years, Obama saved most of his angst for his favorite whipping boy, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In a speech given last Wednesday he stated:  “This is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.”  Taking such quotes as code for anti-Semitism, Abraham Foxman the former president of the Anti-Defamation League and an ardent Obama supporter, has taken exception:  "To say Israelis are the only ones in the world opposed; it's troubling messaging.”

Most troubling, even if Israel were the only nation opposed to this preposterous deal, why shouldn’t they?  What other nation in the world is threatened with annihilation on a daily basis?  But it’s far from just an Israeli problem, as the president would like to dupe people into believing.  With all its inherent ramifications, no doubt Arab states in and around the Gulf, quaking in their boots, will soon kick off off a nuclear arms race of their own.

Every American should also be asking: If this is such a strong deal, why are the Iranians developing ICBM technology at breakneck speed? The Mullahs certainly don’t need ICBMs to hit Israel.  You would think the Brits, the French, and supporters of the deal here would be asking this question as well. Yet for reasons unexplained, U.S. negotiators acquiesced on demands restricting development of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting both Europe and the United States. 

In terms of enforcement, Obama has argued: “if Iran cheats, the world will know it,” and “if we see something suspicious, we will inspect it.” But, as Michael Makovsky correctly notes in the Weekly Standard, these inspections will not be intrusive enough to detect Iranian cheating or to thwart any breakout attempts in time.  And does anyone not living at 1600 Pennsylvania think they won't cheat or already haven’t?

Economic sanctions: The tool that was wrecking the Iranian economy and single handedly brought the Iranians to the negotiating table was lifted in exchange for limited restraints on their behavior.  Good luck on that one. 

Obama talks about being able to “snap back” sanctions.  Just more Pollyanna hyperbole from a man seemingly bereft of a grasp on reality.  With Russia ready to sell Iran S-300 missiles to tighten its air defenses and China ready to exchange nuclear power for oil, the re-imposition of sanctions by the 5+1 is a pipe dream.

Every aspect of this negotiation with a decades-long sworn enemy of the United States reeks of appeasement, but with far greater implications in today’s nuclear age than in 1938.  This deal is the child of a preposterous negotiation that defies credulity.  It’s the brainchild of two men either pathologically naive or having greater concern for legacy and prestige than the security of Americans today and generations hence.  This deal is anything but “Peace for Our Time.”