...and the nuclear inspection agreement is not "Munich." Please give us a break, Dennis Prager. See his piece here: Iran Deal a 1938 Repeat
Prager's piece is ridiculous on many levels, but it is worth pointing to as an example of the reductio ad Hitlerum argument that many "opinion leaders" often use.
I would hope even my ten year old would spot the differences: Britain was forced by Germany to the table; the US forced Iran to the table. Chamberlain negotiated from a position of weakness; Hitler from strength. Obama is negotiating from strength, the Iranian regime from weakness.
As for the possible consequences? We know what happened when Germany reneged. Britain did nothing. If Iran reneges, we have a host of escalation options, and we can use them too.
Does Iran want to dominate the Middle East like Hitler wanted to dominate (really, conquer) Europe? Maybe. But it better get cracking, because after 36 years of revolution, it hasn't made much progress. Sure it influences Baghdad (thanks to us) and Syria (thanks to Israel and us), but otherwise, its foreign policy is small beer. It looks pretty clear that Iran tries to support Shia or Shia-like minorities wherever it can. In some places, like Bahrain and Yemen, they might not even be the bad guys.
Does Iran have American blood on its hands? You bet. Tehran has supported Shia militias that killed some of our troops in Iraq, to say nothing of terrorism over the years. I agree, they are dirty bastards and I have nothing good to say about that regime.
But to credit the Iranians with obvious Al Qaeda attacks? Get real, Prager. The evidence just isn't there. We already know the Iranians do some nasty things; we don't have to make up stuff.
But negotiating with a regime you don't like doesn't mean embracing it. This is elemental to diplomacy.
How many Americans did the PLA kill in Korea? Yet we negotiated with Beijing 20 years later. It was in our interest, just as this is.
No comments:
Post a Comment