Wednesday, July 18 , 2018, 9:46 am | A Few Clouds 69º

 
 
 
 

Mona Charen: Obama Pursues Chamberlainesque Policy Toward Iran

“If you want peace, prepare for war.” — Ancient Roman wisdom

In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was determined to keep peace between Great Britain and Germany. Dismayed by the carnage of World War I, Chamberlain (along with most of the opinion elite in England) sought peace with honor — but in any case, peace.

Yes, Chamberlain had watched with growing anxiety as Germany, in defiance of treaties, rearmed, and as the Nazi Party engaged in ever more brazen and violent repression of domestic opponents. Germany’s alliance with militarist Japan and fascist Spain (1936), followed by the Pact of Steel with fascist Italy and the absorption of Austria in early 1938, increased Downing Street’s disquiet. Yet Chamberlain was determined that Adolf Hitler should comprehend Britain’s peaceful intentions.

Chamberlain pursued back-channel negotiations with Hitler throughout 1938, as the Fuhrer fulminated about repression of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s aggressive intent was plain. But Britons, Chamberlain said, were not willing to risk war for “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”

Britain pressured the Czech government to make concessions to Germany. When Hitler increased his threats, Chamberlain implemented “Plan Z” — an offer to travel to Germany in person to negotiate with Hitler.

Hitler agreed, and Chamberlain met the dictator at his mountain retreat of Berchtesgaden. A week later, he returned to Germany for a second meeting. This time, Hitler kept his eager visitor waiting for half a day, and then backed away from the agreement he had made the previous week. Still, Hitler hinted that if the Sudetenland was handed over, he would have no other territorial claims in Europe. Chamberlain was excited by this, but upon his return home, he found that his cabinet was less so. Undaunted, he contacted Hitler a third time and requested an invitation to return to Germany.

At Munich, after laborious negotiations among many parties, including the Czechs, French and Italians, Chamberlain asked for a private meeting with Hitler. At a tete a tete, Chamberlain pulled from his pocket a three-paragraph codicil to the Munich agreement, declaring that Britain and Germany would never go to war again. Hitler signed it happily, and Chamberlain returned home declaring that he had achieved “peace in our time.”

Chamberlain’s error, apart from believing that Hitler’s word could be trusted, was in assuming that telegraphing his peaceful intent would bring peace. In fact, when dealing with villains and aggressors, signaling peaceful intent is precisely the worst course. It is far better to keep them uncertain and insecure.

From the first days of his presidency, President Barack Obama has pursued a Chamberlainesque policy toward Iran. He began the relationship by assuming the clerical regime’s hostility was directed at President George W. Bush, not at America. Obama accordingly sent New Year’s greetings to the regime (though not to the people) expressing his hopes for a fresh start. He sought face-to-face negotiations with the mullahs. They scorned him. When thousands of Iranians took to the streets en masse following a stolen election, he kept silent, though some chanted, “Obama Obama, you’re either with us or with them.” Obama’s silence spoke volumes, signaling his desire, above all else, for peace. In so doing, like Chamberlain, he conveyed weakness to an aggressor.

So it was no surprise when, after 18 months of failed courtship, Obama’s late embrace of sanctions led to a diplomatic dance. Each new round of sanctions (often vitiated by Obama administration waivers) was accompanied by new offers of negotiation by the mullahs. In the seemingly endless P5-plus-1 talks, the Iranians would agree to limits on the enrichment of uranium at one moment only to deny that they had done so a month or a year later. Meanwhile, the centrifuges kept spinning.

Each new agreement to talk was treated by the Obama administration as a great victory — even when the chief of Iran’s nuclear program told the London Arabic newspaper Al Hayat that the regime consistently lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Now, with only two weeks to go before an election that could select a less congenial president (from Iran’s point of view), and with the Europeans considering a gasoline embargo on the regime, word leaks (though denied by the White House) about a possible secret agreement between Iran and the United States for post-election one-on-one negotiations.

It looks like one more delaying tactic by the mullahs. But it may look to Obama like “Plan Z.”

Mona Charen of National Review magazine writes for Creators Syndicate. Click here for more information or to contact her. Follow Mona Charen on Twitter: @mcharen.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >