Obama’s Munich

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares for his speech before the US Congress on Tuesday morning, Obama’s negotiations with Iran continue down a potential course of no return, for the United States and the world.  No, this is not hyperbole.

What immediately comes to mind is the response of the Administration and its acolytes ratcheting up of their efforts to an all-time high “Diss” level.  The New York Times this weekend firing a White House rebuttal article quoting senior Administration officials, NSA Susan Rice appearing in an interview on Charlie Rose, calling Netanyahu’s speech, “destructive to the fabric of the [US and Israel] relationship,” and lately Secretary of State John Kerry indirectly warning Netanyahu not to divulge aspects of the US/Iran nuclear talks during his speech to Congress.

In an excellent article carried in The Weekly Standard, “Appeasement in Our Time“, Michael Makovsky, chief executive officer of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, details what we already know about the US concessions to the Iranians:

“First, the administration, through the Joint Plan of Action interim deal, conceded that Iran can maintain its nuclear program, contravening decades of U.S. policy and multiple legally binding U.N. Security Council resolutions. We won’t be able to stop the proliferation cascade that will ensue in a region already rife with violence and instability.

Second, the administration moved its stated red line from denying Iran nuclear weapons capacity to ensuring its nuclear breakout time is at least a year. But there’s really no way to guarantee that. The multitude of steps across multiple institutions that would have to be taken to detect, verify, and try to resolve diplomatically any Iranian attempt to sneak out or break out means a year would pass before a military strike could even be considered. In any case, prompt and thorough verification would be virtually unachievable because the deal won’t require full Iranian transparency on its past research into nuclear weapons technology.

Third, with the latest U.S. offer reportedly allowing 6,500 operating centrifuges, Iran would have to verifiably export or eliminate almost all its enriched uranium stockpiles to push the breakout time to more than 12 months—something it won’t do. It would also have to verifiably dismantle the rest of its 19,000 centrifuges—something it won’t be required to do.

Fourth, the deal will include a sunset clause whereby Iran eventually would become a normalized nuclear power operating as large an enrichment program as it likes. So in perhaps a decade, based on recent reports, Iran could be treated like Japan.

Finally, the deal ignores Iran’s ballistic missile program—the largest in the Middle East—despite ongoing advances that could allow it to develop the capability to target the United States around the same time the agreement would expire.”

Makovsky also quoted Churchill’s response to Neville Chamberlain:

Chamberlain told the British public that in Munich he had achieved “peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.” Churchill argued in response, “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

The difference between Chamberlain and Obama?  Chamberlain’s appeasement led to World War II estimated 75 million dead, with roughly 40-50 million dead in the European theater alone.  With Obama’s appeasement, and the resultant nuclear proliferation, our results could be conflagration on a scale unthinkable.  While I am not by nature a fatalist, I did grow up Catholic, and remember God destroyed the world’s corruption first by flood, with the second time predicted by fire.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

Add comment