Most of the world doesn’t remember the name Neville Chamberlain, but it cannot forget the stirring words and wartime leadership of Winston Churchill. That’s because British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, in September, 1938, attempted to negotiate peace with Adolf Hitler, while Churchill had the courage to face the Nazi war machine head-on. Instead of showing the resolve necessary to gather the growing evil of Nazi Germany, Chamberlain sought to take the easy way out, and to appease a power-hungry war criminal. Churchill, fortunately for free peoples the world over, saw Hitler for what he was, and mobilized Britain to stand-up to his thirst for world domination.
The parallels between the so-called “peace” Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler in 1938 and President Obama’s push for scaled-back sanctions against Iran are staggering. Both proposals saw a greater eagerness on the part of the threatened to strike a deal than the aggressors making the threats. Just as Chamberlain wanted to appease Hitler more than Hitler wanted to be appeased, the Obama Administration’s overtures to Iran show a desperation for a foreign policy victory that plays into the hands of the ayatollahs and the ruling Muslim clerics in that country. Iran sees this proposed “peace” as the most certain path to their becoming a nuclear power, not a cave into American and Israeli demands.
Iran is intent on obtaining nuclear weapons, which they will use to threaten and harm the United States and Israel. Economic sanctions passed by the United States Congress in cooperation with international allies have crippled the Iranian economy, undermining Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapons program. At the time these sanctions are working, the Obama Administration should be forcing concessions out of Iran, not giving away the store in the name of a peace that will prove as illusory as the one Neville Chamberlain thought he had in 1938…before the Nazis bombed Britain.
Listen to my conversation with former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Danny Ayalon, as he joined me on “Common Cents” from Jerusalem last Friday to discuss the growing threat of Iran, and the peace proposal that has no hope of providing peace to freedom loving people in the United States and Israel.
[sermons id=393]
Obama’s Neville Chamberlain Moment http://t.co/i7sXfHZA70
Obama’s Neville Chamberlain Moment: Most of the world doesn’t remember the name Neville Chamberlain, but it… http://t.co/Fy3WbBYyx4
Doug Jett liked this on Facebook.
Dave Chisholm liked this on Facebook.
You didn’t actually draw any comparisons. Specifically how does the Iran negotiations compare to the negotiations with Chamberlain and Hitler? Other than the fact that they are negotiations with a party that has am irrational distaste for Jews.
Iran would love to duplicate the horror that Hitler was successful in accomplishing the only difference is hindsight is 20/20 and we can look back at what Hitler did. Dealing with Iran in a passive way will only cause others to be forced to deal with them more directly later on which probably will mean Israel.
Sure, I agree with most of your first statement. But what’s the alternative? A long term military engagement, probably led by us? If you look at Iran’s economy, the sanctions have had a damagin impact. When AIPAC comes out against any lessening of them, it means something was working. And we now have new leadership willing to talk about what needs to happen to lessen the impact. The only real danger that I see is if the international community fails to keep its word to reinforce the sanctions and leverage stricter ones the moment Iran neglects to hold up to their end of the bargain.
That being said, I still don’t see any comparison between this situation and what happened between Hitler and Chamberlain. I guess my question to both of you would be what do you propose? No negotiations? Great, that’s led to 20% enrichment – good luck with that! Or a prolonged military engagement? Good luck garnering both national and international support and have fun protecting every other nation that jumps into the fray.
I am for negotiating but just not giving in so much. This may seem harsh but we are more powerful than Iran right now and we have to offer a deal that demands they hand them over or show proof of the destruction of their nuke program. Based on Iran’s track record I would not let them go based on the “honor system” .
Maybe this is me misunderstanding the deal but aren’t they required to show ongoing proof of that?
Timothy J Fitch liked this on Facebook.
Scalling back the sanctions is weak because you are telling Iran that we will give you what you want before you give us what we want. Iran is currently and aggressively working on a nuclear program. My point is they need to be more transparent and dismantle whatever nuke program they have in place BEFORE we even think about lifting sanctions. To me its backwards negotiating and you are rewarding Iran for doing what? Absolutely nothing. Here is what happens now, Iran will get the sanctions lifted and everyone stops talking about the issue and Iran moves on at a faster pace outside of the spotlight because “everyone will believe that they must be doing something right since Obama lifted the sanctions”. Lastly I don’t trust Iran and I really dont trust the guy who is allows Fast &Furious, Bengahzi, IRS targeting under his watch and claims no knowledge on these matters in addition to flat out lying on a host of other issues. Do I really have faith that this same guy will know what Iran is up to in regards to their nuke program? Ummm that’s a big no.