"Worse than Munich"- Iranian, American, & Israeli experts agree- Obama/Kerry's Geneva appeasement (enabling Iran nuclear-weapons) will lead to war, nuclear arms race

Obama / Kerry's Geneva appeasement deal handcuffs allies Saudi Arabia & Israel- will spark nuclear arms race

The Nuclear Deal With Iran is a Foreign Policy Disaster by Daniel Pipes 

“For the first time in nearly a decade we have halted parts of Iran’s nuclear program” announced a jubilant Barack Obama after the news of the just-signed Geneva six-month interim agreement with Iran.

But the American goal for the accord was that the Iranians not “advance their program” of building a uranium nuclear bomb (and perhaps a plutonium bomb too); the apparent deal exactly permits such advancement, plus sanctions relief to Tehran worth about US$9 billion.

This wretched deal offers one occasion when comparison with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 is valid. An overeager Western government, blind to the evil cunning of the regime it so much wants to work with, appeases it with concessions that will come back to haunt it. Geneva and Nov. 24 will be remembered along with Munich and Sep. 29. 

Barack Obama has made many foreign policy errors in the past five years, but this is the first to rank as a disaster.

Aaron Klein reports in WND.com  "Israeli personnel in recent days were in Saudi Arabia to inspect bases that could be used as a staging ground to launch attacks against Iran, according to informed Egyptian intelligence officials.The officials said the U.S. passed strong messages to Israel and the Saudis that the Americans maintain and control radar capabilities around the skies of Iran and that no strike should be launched without the permission of the Obama administration.

The officials said Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other Arab and Persian Gulf countries have been discussing the next steps toward possible strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Ben Shapiro analyzes why the P5+1 Geneva agreement to de-nuclear-weaponize Iran is "Worse than Munich" in Breitbart.com

"President Obama’s cowardly deal with the Iranian regime – a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of multiple United Nations resolutions, and the persecution of Christians – marks the most ignominious moment in western foreign policy in decades. The easy comparison is to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in Munich in 1938, when he signed allowed Hitler to consolidate his gains in the Sudetenland on the bare promise of no further aggression in Europe.

But in truth, the west’s appeasement of Iran is significantly worse than its appeasement of Hitler in 1938, for a variety of reasons. First, as of 1938, Hitler had not yet made clear his plans to exterminate European Jewry. He was still attempting to ship European Jews out of Europe; the Final Solution was not formally adopted until 1941. Iran has made clear its desire to wipe Israel off the map. Its current leader, supposed moderate Hassan Rouhani, has refused to acknowledge the Holocaust as historically accurate, participated in a rally calling for Israel’s destruction, and according to Iranian press reports, stated, “The Zionist regime is a wound that has sat on the body of the Muslim world for years and needs to be removed.” Yet the Obama administration wants to pretend he is a moderate. 

Video: Dr. Mordechai Kedar: "Obama sells Iranian nuke-maker Ayatollah Khamenei's "taqiya-trap" to appeasement-amnesics"

... Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are militantly opposed to the western sellout of its allies in the Middle East in favor of paper promises from a lying regime.

Finally, Chamberlain’s foolishness was a combination of myopia and fear. President Obama’s foolishness is a combination of malice and egotism.

Desperate to misdirect from his failing signature program, Obamacare, and eager to earn his diplomatic laurels in his second term to placate his ego, President Obama’s Iran solution is just a convenient piece of a larger cowardly foreign policy. President Obama’s foreign policy over the last six months has “won” America the diplomatic victory of leaving a weapons of mass destruction-using dictator in power in Syria while shifting Russia into the Middle Eastern driver’s seat and donating American stockpiles to al Qaeda. Obama has undercut the secular Egyptian military regime in favor of the fascistic Muslim Brotherhood. American power in the Middle East has been effectively minimized.

Prof. Mordechai Kedar: Iran's Rouhani threat? Is Obama setting-up Israel to confront Iran on nukes?

But most of all, he (Obama) has successfully vented his anti-Israel malice. How else to read an administration that has repeatedly leaked Israeli national security secrets in order to stop an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities? How else to interpret an administration that has made it safer to be an anti-Israel dictator seeking nuclear weapons than a free and prosperous democracy? How else to understand an administration that insists that Israel apologize to Turkey for confronting a terrorist flotilla aimed at helping Hamas, insists that Israel building homes in its capital city of Jerusalem is more flammable than Iran building nuclear weapons, and suggests that the Israel-Palestinian issue lies at the heart of all Middle Eastern conflict?

Israel is on its own. Obama’s deal now makes clear that if Israel hits Iran, it does so at the risk of losing American support, even should Iran retaliate against Israel militarily. More than that, Obama’s deal makes clear that America will never take action against Iran under his administration, or greenlight action from others. After all, President Obama is not a man who declares that he has been duped. Just as in Syria, Obama will assume away any problems arising from his diplomatic blundering.  

In 2012, Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel told Obama at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., “How is it that the Holocaust's No. 1 denier is still a president? He who threatens to use nuclear weapons -- to use nuclear weapons -- to destroy the Jewish state. We must know that when evil has power, it is almost too late…Mr. President, we are here in this place of memory. Israel cannot not remember. And because it remembers, it must be strong, just to defend its own survival and its own destiny.” Obama nodded along. Clearly, those words didn’t penetrate. They didn’t penetrate because Obama did not care. He has his own agenda.

And that agenda is not anti-war. It is merely anti-Israel, and anti-American influence in the Middle East. Unfortunately, that position makes war a near-inevitability.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill, then relegated to the opposition in Parliament, lambasted Chamberlain for the Munich deal:

We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road... we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting." And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.

On Saturday night, after the Iran deal had been announced, Secretary of State John Kerry said that opponents of the deal wanted war as a “first resort.” That was yet another Obama administration lie. Opponents of the deal recognize what Churchill did in 1938: Appeasement causes war. When war isn’t even a last resort – and who, at this point, takes Obama’s threats of war remotely seriously? -- it is often the first result.  Read it all in Worse than Munich.

In this exclusive DemoCast video: Iranian-American movie director, Ben-Hur Sepehr, expresses that Iran's regime is shrewd, conniving, unscrupulous and requires tough, not naive, dealing from America and Europe:




Munich II by James Carofano in National Review

What just went down in Geneva is, in fact, a replay of the greatest diplomatic tragedy of the 20th century.
The Munich deal rested on the ridiculous notion that Hitler could be satiated. The new pact builds on the equally ludicrous idea that Iran would give up the means to build a nuclear weapon that will serve as the tip of its foreign-policy spear.

The saddest part of this negotiated fiasco is that everyone agrees why Iran came to the bargaining table. The sanctions worked; the mullahs had run out of cash, and Tehran determined that the easiest way to get the funds flowing was to get the West to back off.

This is where the realists and the idealists part company. Realists knew that the sanctions were good for only one purpose: to weaken the regime to the point where it would collapse or be overthrown.  They crossed their fingers, hoping that would happen before Tehran got a nuke it could turn on the West. Regime change remains the only realistic option to bombing or bearing the danger of living with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Idealists, on the other hand, held that sanctions were the magic button for getting the Iranians to be reasonable. Once Tehran started on the path to accommodating the West (they theorized), the mullahs would realize that the benefits of collaboration and transparency outweighed the burdens of isolation and confrontation.

The parting of the ways between realists and idealist is not about two different visions of the path to a peaceful future. In the case of this particular foreign-policy conundrum, the realist approach is based on a full awareness of whom the West is really dealing with.  Read more: