On a day in September, the most respected nation on earth signed an agreement with another nation that was famous for its saber-rattling, opposition to certain ethnic groups, and the blame it placed on the Western world as the cause of its misfortune. The nation chafed under treaties that stifled its economy and limited its military.
The agreement was lauded by the great powers and the population at home, and despite vehement criticism by the opposition party, and a handful of dissenters who were members of the governing party, it was passed. The limiting treaties were lifted. It gave the war-mongering nation at its center everything that its totalitarian government wanted, with the only assurance being the signatures on a scrap of paper.
The victory of the hard-line elements in the authoritarian regime silenced any internal critics. Plans for a coup launched by more moderate members of the military were scrapped because of the unprecedented capitulation of the Western Powers in the face of naked aggression.
I am not, of course, speaking of the sanctioning of the Iran Nuclear Agreement by the U.S. Senate this month, but the signing of the Munich Agreement between the governments of Britain and Germany on Sept. 29, 1938, in which case British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared he had achieved “Peace with Honor” and found himself at war with Adolf Hitler’s Germany a year later. The similarities do not end there.
The Iran Nuclear Deal has several glaring points that will, in time, prove not to hinder Iranian nuclear ambitions but accelerate Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. While the deal provides for inspection of several nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency, it specifically excludes any facility classified as “military” by the Iranian government. The deal grants to Iran new, modern centrifuges that upon delivery cannot purify radioactive elements into the level necessary for the enrichment of nuclear weapons but can be retrofitted to such capability with relative ease. Despite Iran’s claims that it abandoned any military nuclear ambitions in 2003, in the ensuing time Iran continues to forbid IAEA inspections of several military facilities. Thus, even if the inspections were conducted in good faith, the deal lacks any “teeth” for enforcement. At best, in this scenario, sanctions would be reintroduced after it became evident that Iran had used this technology to create nuclear weapons. Director General Yukia Amano of the IAEA says there has been misrepresentation of these details but declines to say exactly how.
But why should it be any concern if Iran joins the list of nations with a nuclear arsenal? What business was it of Neville Chamberlain if Germany absorbed the Sudetenland and its ethnic German population? As we know, Hitler’s appetite did not stop there. Within a few months, he had swallowed the rest of Czechoslovakia.
Of course, one might argue, we have no evidence that the Iranians are not telling the truth now. All we have is over 30 years of statements and actions. Despite the election of a “moderate” — a relative term — president, the Iranian government still follows the general direction of the Grand Ayatollah. And this is the same government that has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and has specifically called the U.S. “The Great Satan.” This is the same country that celebrated the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Taking one part nuclear power, one part stated desire for destruction of the U.S. and its allies, and one part sponsor of terrorism is a recipe for disaster.
In 1938, a handful in Prime Minister Chamberlain’s party had the courage to stand and speak against the agreement, among them Winston Churchill. It is a sad state of the partisanship of this country today that there is no Democrat of any stature who dares challenge the president in an authentic way.
The Munich Agreement did not prevent World War II. We will soon see that the Iranian Nuclear Agreement of 2015 will not prevent future conflict. With the lens of future knowledge, we know that had Chamberlain opposed Hitler in 1938, Germany would not have been prepared for it. Not only had Germany not completed its remilitarization and mechanization, but Chamberlain would have found an unexpected ally: the Chief of the German General Staff, Gen. Ludwig Beck, was planning on moving against the dictator. Hitler’s unexpected diplomatic victory forced Beck’s resignation. I would not be surprised if that similarity was playing itself out now as well.
When Hitler finally was finally defeated, it was far costlier than it otherwise would have been. The same will be true with Iran. In 1938 Britain, only one man — Sir Winston Churchill — both saw the danger and was willing to speak out against his own party and public opinion in defense of what was right.
Our country needs a Winston Churchill. Sadly, we have only Neville Chamberlains.
Patrick Calder of Portland is former chairman of the Portland Republican Party and a candidate for Congress in 2012 in Maine’s 1st Congressional District.