Iran Deal "Worse Than Munich Agreement"

by JASmius

Wow.  And I thought Mrs. Abedini had landed a haymaker.  David Horowitz made her condemnation look like a swoon at an ObamaCare event:

The U.S.-Iran deal on nuclear weapons is far more disastrous than the 1938 Munich Agreement, which permitted Nazi Germany's annexation of portions of Czechoslovakia, says David Horowitz, president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

"It is catastrophic. It's worse than Munich because after [British Prime Minister Neville] Chamberlain sold the Czechs down the river to [Adolf] Hitler, although they suffered and many of them died, they weren't obliterated," Horowitz told The Steve Malzberg Show on Newsmax TV.

Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal expands on the analogy:

Britain and France's capitulation to Nazi Germany at Munich has long been a byword for ignominy, moral and diplomatic. Yet neither Neville Chamberlain nor Édouard Daladier had the public support or military wherewithal to stand up to Hitler in September 1938. Britain had just 384,000 men in its regular army; the first Spitfire aircraft only entered RAF service that summer. "Peace for our time" it was not, but at least appeasement bought the West a year to rearm.

The signing of the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973 was a betrayal of an embattled U.S. ally and the abandonment of an effort for which 58,000 American troops gave their lives. Yet it did end America's participation in a peripheral war, which neither Congress nor the public could indefinitely support. "Peace with honor" it was not, as the victims of Cambodia's Killing Fields or Vietnam's re-education camps can attest. But, for American purposes at least, it was peace.

By contrast, the interim nuclear agreement signed in Geneva on Sunday by Iran and the six big powers has many of the flaws of Munich and Paris. But it has none of their redeeming or exculpating aspects.

True, the parallels are not perfect.  The British and French couldn't have stood against a German blitzkrieg in 1938 - but they could have two years earlier when Hitler made his first aggressive move by reoccupying the Rhineland in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty.  Top German military leaders feared that very outcome and were prepared to depose the Nazi tyrant after an Anglo-French intervention.  But it never came, and the last realistic chance to topple Hitler short of war faded from view.  And, of course, when war came a year after Munich made it inevitable, it was still weak and half-hearted from the Allied side (the "Phony War").

The biggest difference, though, was that Chamberlain and Daladier were not pro-Nazi sympathizers looking to score a propaganda coup.  They were men of the generation that saw the (for the time) unprecedented carnage of World War I, a conflict that took a large portion of the young men of the European powers.  It scarred them indelibly, and the common vow was (and you've heard this before), "Never again".  The British and French leaderships and their peoples had no stomach for another war and were willing to do just about anything to avoid one.  And that's what Adolph Hitler was counting on.

As for Vietnam, President Nixon's hand was forced and had been from the day he took office.  After the Tet Offensive in January 1968 that war's "expiration date" passed and it became unsustainable not militarily but in terms of public support at home.  Nixon tried to get the best peace deal he could, but was undermined by post-Watergate Democrats in Congress who were pro-communist and who pulled the plug on the economic and military support that had been promised to the South Vietnamese.

The biggest difference in this example is that, while the surrender to North Vietnam had horrific consequences for the South and Cambodia and Laos, there was no chance of any repercussions directly impacting American interests outside of Indochina.  We dishonorably and treacherously walked away, but the NVA and the VC didn't follow us "home," gnawing at our heels.

O's nuclear sellout wasn't driven by pacifism or overwhelming public opposition to taking a tough stand against the mullahs.  He did it, at best, to create a distraction from the onrushing ObamaCare disaster, and at worst, because he's an anti-Semitic, pro-Iranian Ameriphobe who wishes to see the most virulent, warmongering madmen on the planet gain possession, and make use of, nuclear weapons.  And the consequences of this action will not be confined to the Middle East.

For those of you who are familiar with Bible eschatology, it is now possible, for the first time, to see the leading edge of the Tribulation Period coming over the horizon.