Dershowitz: There were better options on Iran - Obama gave them away
Yes, he's even lost Democratic stalwart Alan Dershowitz. President Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep telling us that there were 'no better options available' to their sellout to Iran. But Alan Dershowitz - an all-in Democrat - says there were better options, but Obama gave them away.
The reality is that there were always alternatives, though they
became less realistic as the negotiations progressed. We could have
stuck to the original redlines – non-negotiable demands – from the
beginning. These included on-the-spot inspections of all facilities
rather than the nearly month-long notice that will allow the Iranians to
hide what they are doing; shutting down all facilities specifically
designed for nuclear weapons production; maintaining the embargo on
missiles and other sophisticated weapons rather than allowing it to
gradually be lifted; and most crucially, a written assurance that the
international community will never allow Iran to develop a nuclear
arsenal. The current assortment of indeterminate and varying timelines
agreed to will allow Iranians to believe — and proclaim — they will soon
be free of any constraints on their nuclear adventurism.
Instead,
we caved early and often because the Iranians knew we desperately need a
deal to implement President Obama’s world vision and to enhance his
legacy.
This approach to the deal — surrendering leverage from
the outset — violated the most basic principles of negotiation 101. We
were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and their
ayatollah checkmated our president.
But the real losers were those
countries — our allies — who were not even allowed to participate in
the negotiations. Virtually every Middle Eastern leader, with the
exception of Syria’s Assad, opposes this deal. Nor do they feel bound by
it, since they did not have a vote.
The deal was imposed on them, in
much the same way the Chamberlain-Hitler deal was imposed on
Czechoslovakia in 1938. The difference is that Czechoslovakia did not
have the means to defend itself, whereas Israel and some of its Sunni
neighbors do have the capacity to try to prevent Iran from developing a
nuclear arsenal — which the mullahs would use to increase their hegemony
over the area and to threaten Israel’s security through its surrogates,
Hezbollah and Hamas. Those groups would become even more aggressive
under the protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella.
In an interview with Sean Hannity, Mark Steyn argues that Barack Obama is worse - far worse - than Neville Chamberlain.
Sean started by cross-cutting Barack Obama on Tuesday with Neville
Chamberlain in 1938. But I thought that comparison was unfair to
Chamberlain. He was an honorable man who loved his country and just
happened to get the greatest issue of the day wrong. You can't say the
same of Obama:
Steyn said he thinks what President Barack Obama did
is "significantly worse" than what former British prime minister Neville
Chamberlain did. He also stated that he doesn't think the president was
negotiating on behalf of the United States.
"I think what happened at these talks is that he and the Iranians
were in a sense negotiating together to anoint Iran as the regional
power in the Middle East and to facilitate Iran's re-entry, the biggest
planetary sponsor of terrorism, to facilitate its re-entry into the
global community," Steyn said.
"That's what Obama was there doing."
I think the nuclear issue was a mere pretext, a Hitchcockian
McGuffin. Iran will be a nuclear state, and very soon. The joke
inspections regime - under which Teheran can block any inspections for
the best part of a month - will facilitate the nuclearization of Iran
and prevent anyone who objects to it - such as Israel - from doing
anything about it. That's a given.
But that's not what the talks were about. Obama's vision of the
post-American Middle East sees Iran as the dominant power, and that's
what the negotiations were there to finesse. As I said to Sean, Obama's
belief that American power and influence has been bad for the world
extends beyond America itself to America's allies. So on missile defense
he takes the side of Russia over US allies like Poland and the Czech
Republic; in the Falklands he takes the side of Argentina over the
United Kingdom; and now in the Middle East he takes the side of Iran
over the Sunni Arab monarchies and Israel.
This agreement will have bloody and brutal consequences.
As I am sure you are all aware, there is currently a meeting going on in Vienna, at the conclusion of which a deal will be announced that will make Iran a nuclear-armed state within ten years. How bad is this deal? Consider the following coming out of Vienna.
BREAKING NEWS - IRAN: All nuclear sites will continue activities and Uranium enrichment will continue.
Bret Stephens writes that the P 5+1 deal with Iran sets a new standard for the most given away for the least by the many and the strong.
Consider: Britain and France came to Munich
as military weaklings. The U.S. and its allies face Iran from a position
of overwhelming strength. Britain and France won time to rearm. The
U.S. and its allies have given Iran more time to stockpile uranium and
develop its nuclear infrastructure. Britain and France had overwhelming
domestic constituencies in favor of any deal that would avoid war. The
Obama
administration is defying broad bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress for the sake of a deal.
As
for the Vietnam parallels, the U.S. showed military resolve in the
run-up to the
Paris Accords
with a massive bombing and mining campaign of the North that
demonstrated presidential resolve and forced Hanoi to sign the deal. The
administration comes to Geneva fresh from worming its way out of its
own threat to use force to punish Syria's
Bashar Assad
for his use of chemical weapons against his own people.
The
Nixon
administration also exited Vietnam in the context of a durable
opening to Beijing that helped tilt the global balance of power against
Moscow. Now the U.S. is attempting a fleeting opening with Tehran at the
expense of a durable alliance of values with Israel and interests with
Saudi Arabia. "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" is the title of a
hilarious memoir by British author
Toby Young
—but it could equally be the history of Barack Obama's foreign
policy.
That's where the differences
end between Geneva and the previous accords. What they have in common is
that each deal was a betrayal of small countries—Czechoslovakia, South
Vietnam, Israel—that had relied on Western security guarantees. Each was
a victory for the dictatorships: "No matter the world wants it or not,"
Iranian President
Hasan Rouhani
said Sunday, "this path will, God willingly, continue to the peak
that has been considered by the martyred nuclear scientists." Each deal
increased the contempt of the dictatorships for the democracies: "If
ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella,"
Hitler is reported to have said of Chamberlain after Munich, "I'll kick
him downstairs and jump on his stomach."
And
each deal was a prelude to worse. After Munich came the conquest of
Czechoslovakia, the Nazi-Soviet pact and World War II. After Paris came
the fall of Saigon and Phnom Penh and the humiliating exit from the
embassy rooftop. After Geneva there will come a new, chaotic Mideast
reality in which the United States will lose leverage over enemies and
friends alike.
According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans
support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in
Geneva, and 22 percent oppose it.
While indicating little trust
among Americans toward Iranian intentions, the survey also underscored a
strong desire to avoid new US military entanglements after long, costly
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if the Iran deal fails, 49
percent want the United States to increase sanctions and 31 percent
think it should launch further diplomacy. But only 20 percent want US
military force to be used against Iran.
The survey's results suggest that a US public weary of war could help bolster Obama's push to keep Congress from approving new sanctions that would complicate the next round of negotiations for a final agreement with Iran.
The poll's conclusions are startlingly similar to British polls taken around the time of Neville Chamberlain's September 1938 agreement with Adolph Hitler over Czechoslovakia.
Public opinion in 1938 seemed reasonably in favour of Neville Chamberlain and what was later to be termed appeasement when he returned with "peace in our time" after the September 1938 Munich Agreement. Opinion polls appear to show that the majority of the nation was in support of the stance taken by Chamberlain.
"Should Britain promise assistance to Czechoslovakia if Germany acts as it did towards Austria?" (Asked March 1938)
Yes: 33%
No: 43%
No opinion: 24%
"Hitler says that he has no more territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?" (Asked October 1938)
Yes: 7%
No: 93%
"Which of these views comes closest to your views of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement?" (Asked February 1939)
1. It is a policy that will ultimately lead to a lasting peace in Europe: 28%
2. It will keep us out of war until we have time to rearm: 46%
3. It is bringing war nearer by whetting the appetite of the dictators: 24%
4. No opinion: 2%
On March 16, 1939, Hitler invaded the half of Czechoslovakia that was not ceded to him. That (finally) changed British public opinion:
Is the British government right in following a policy giving guarantees to preserve the independence of small European states? (Asked April 1939)
Yes: 83%
No: 17%
Here in Israel we have no delusions (from the first link).
In Israel, a Channel 2 poll conducted Tuesday night showed that a
majority of Israelis backed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent criticism
of the Obama administration’s Iranian policy, with 58% saying the
criticism was justified, and 28% saying it was not.
In addition, most Israelis – 60% – said that the agreement endangered Israel, while 25% said it did not.
In his biography, Chaim Weizmann relates the story of a visit to his home by Jan Masaryk, the son of the founder and first President of the Czech Republic, shortly after Masaryk had visited Neville Chamberlain to try to convince him not to abandon his country to Hitler. Here's part of what Weizmann reported.
For a while he was silent, then he turned to
us and, pointing to the little dog he had brought with him, said:
‘That’s all I have left, and believe me, I am ashamed to look him in the
eyes.’Once he had broken the silence he went on talking, and
what he told us was terrible to listen to. He had had a conversation
that morning with the Prime Minister, and had taxed him with the
deliberate betrayal of Czechoslovakia. ‘Mr. Chamberlain sat absolutely
unmoved. When I had finished he said: “Mr. Masaryk, you happen to
believe in Dr. Benes, I happen to trust Herr Hitler.”’ There was nothing
left for Masaryk but to get up and leave the room.
A great democratic country, a
magnificent army and a superb munition plant had been delivered to the
future conqueror of Europe, and a people which had fought valiantly for
its freedom was betrayed by the democracies.It was cold
comfort to us to reflect that the misfortunes which had befallen
Czechoslovakia were in a way more poignant than those we faced – at
least for the moment. We could not tell what the future held in store
for us; we only knew that we had little to expect in the way of sympathy
or action from the Western democracies.
Who said the words below and what was (s)he talking about?
I will begin by saying what
everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be
stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat.
...
It is the most grievous consequence of
what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years
- five years of futile good intentions, five years of eager search for
the line of least resistance, five years of uninterrupted retreat ...
five years of neglect of our defences....
Our loyal, brave people...should know the
truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and
deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a
defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us
along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone
in our history ... 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. This is only the first sip,
the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year
by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour,
we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
Here's a picture of the man who said it:
The date was October 5, 1938. Winston Churchill was talking about Neville Chamberlain's Munich agreement. But the same words could have applied to Hussein Obama's Iran deal. Scary, isn't it?
You can find the full text of Winston Churchill's speech in the House of Commons after Chamberlain's return from Munich here (Hat Tip: William Kristol).
The Umbrella Men: Neville Chamberlain and Barack Obama
Bill Whittle talks about some of the similarities between Neville Chamberlain and Barack Hussein Obama.
Can personal charm stop a dictator? That's what Neville Chamberlain thought he was going to do, when he implemented Plan Z. Of course it didn't work, and World War II happened in spite of Chamberlain's charisma and personal likability. It was Winston Churchill, the pompous and grumpy stalwart, who actually fought the war.
In this Afterburner, Bill Whittle uses this lesson from history as an allegory to discuss how President Obama assumes he can handle foreign relations.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
In case you're wondering, I took some of the kids up north today.
This is rich on so many levels. US Secretary of State John Kerry warns of a 'Munich moment' if Congress votes against attacking Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry
told House Democrats that the United States faced a "Munich moment" in
deciding whether to respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by
the Syrian government, Politico reported on Monday.
According to the Politico report, in a
70-minute conference call on Monday afternoon, Kerry derided Syrian
President Bashar Assad as a "two-bit dictator" who will "continue to act
with impunity," and he urged lawmakers to back President Barack Obama's
plan for "limited, narrow" strikes against the Assad regime, Democratic
sources on the call told the news web site.
Kerry's derisive comments on Assad and his
reference to the 1938 Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and British
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, signal the White House's resolve to
get Congress on board Obama's plan to punish Assad for his use of
chemical weapons.
Did Churchill seek a (not required) vote of Parliament before he started to go after Germany? How long did it take for him to disavow Chamberlain's policies of appeasement? Churchill was railing against Hitler in the 1930's while Kerry....
and Obama.... was at least smart enough not to have his picture taken with Assad....
Czech Ambassador Tomas Pojar was in the hall attending The Jerusalem Post
Diplomatic Conference in Herzliya on Wednesday when Foreign Minister Avigdor
Liberman made an example of his country, saying Israel was not about to become
“the second Czechoslovakia.”
...
Pojar, in an interview afterward with
The Jerusalem Post, replied with a “yes and no” when asked whether there was
validity in that historical comparison.
No, he said, because the
situation in 1938 in Central Europe, and in the world, was drastically different
than the situation today. “The parallels are interesting, but it is not as if
you can easily implement the lessons from one situation onto another, a century
or half-century later.”
But still, he said, there are
similarities.
“There are certain parallels in that Czechoslovakia was the
only democratic country in the entire region at the time,” he said. “There are
parallels about how much guarantees you can get from outside, and how much you
should rely on them.”
Pojar said that in addition to his country’s tragic
experiences during World War II, it also had experiences under
communism.
All this had embedded in the Czechs’ “natural skepticism,” and
a disinclination to believe in immediate “grandiose ideas and miraculous
solutions.”
“We are the most atheistic, non-religious nation in Europe,
if not in the entire world,” he asserted. “We don’t believe in miracles, and we
don’t believe in political miracles and the solutions of ideologies that [posit
that] something can be easily implemented and solved.”
Pojar said the
Czechs realize “there are huge differences between war and peace. It is not only
either war or peace... Even some interim solutions are sometimes better
than crumbled expectations because of grandiose ideas.”
The ambassador
said one of the lessons the Czech Republic learned from its past is that “we
strongly believe that solutions cannot be imposed from the outside, because they
do not work.”
That firm belief is one of the reasons why the Czech
Republic, alone among the 27 EU countries, voted with Israel and seven other
countries at the UN on November 29 against upgrading the Palestinian status at
the UN to that of nonmember state observer.
Pojar also spoke at length about his country's vote against upgrading the status of the 'Palestinians' at the UN last month.
Shortly after 9/11, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon managed to infuriate US President George W. Bush (who would take a little longer to emerge from his father's shell and become pro-Israel for a while) with a speech that compared Israel to 1938 Czechoslovakia.
"The enlightened democracies of Europe decided then to sacrifice Czechoslovakia in favor of a convenient temporary solution" to the demands of Germany's Adolf Hitler, Sharon said. "We will be unable to accept that. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism."
"Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense," Sharon said.
Bush, as noted, was not pleased.
"The prime minister's comments are unacceptable," [then White House spokesman Ari] Fleischer said. "Israel has no stronger friend and ally in the world than the United States. President Bush is an especially close friend of Israel."
He added: "The United States has been working for months to press the parties to end the violence and return to a political dialogue. The United States will continue to press both Israel and the Palestinians to move forward."
Earlier [that] week, an unidentified administration official leaked to the news media that Bush's security team was working on a plan for a Palestinian state and that it would keep pushing its own proposals.
In the meantime, under prodding by [then-] Secretary of State Colin Powell, Israel and the Palestinian Authority resumed security talks without waiting for a period free of terrorist attacks, as demanded by Sharon.
Fleischer responded, "The United States is not doing anything to try to appease the Arabs at Israel's expense."
The Bush administration has tried to get Arab countries to support its counterterrorism campaign against the al-Qaida terrorist network in Afghanistan.
If this all sounds familiar, it should. But there are other parallels between Israel and Czechoslovakia, aside from the World's desire to sacrifice a small, vibrant democracy in order to maintain 'World Peace.' One important parallel is between Czechoslovakia's Sudentenland and Israel's Samarian mountains. Another is the parallel between the IDF and Czechoslovakia's army. Giulio Meotti explains.
On September 29, 1938, the Czechoslovak state was truncated and deprived of defensible borders by the “Munich agreement.” Six months later, abandoned by its allies England and France, and bullied by Adolf Hitler, Czechoslovakia lay down and died. Like Israel today, the Czechs were accused of “intransigence” and of being “disturbers of the peace.” They were so disheartened that in the end they chose not to fight, but to surrender. “Peace” meant capitulation.
Czechoslovakia’s situation in 1938 is in fact similar to Israel’s in 2012. Like Israel’s IDF, the Czechs had one of the strongest armies in Europe. Like Israel, Czechoslovakia was a very young and vibrant state. Like Israel, Czechoslovakia was the only liberal democracy in Eastern Europe. And like the Obama administration’s pressing Israel to give up its settlements to the Arabs, the Nazis demanded the annexation of the Sudeten Land, settled by three million Germans. And the Sudeten mountains, like Israel’s “occupied territories,” were the only position from which the Bohemian plain, and the capital Prague, was defensible.
Like Hitler’s demand of “land for peace,” in the name of “peace” Obama is pressing Israel to give up Judea and Samaria, the final line of defense before the Coastal Plain against a hostile Iranian proxy state seated high on the hills only 12 miles from Tel Aviv and just three miles from Israel’s only international airport. That’s why Israel’s legendary diplomat Abba Eban called the borders established following the 1967 Six-Day War “Auschwitz borders.” And does anyone remember how Lord Trenchard got up in the British parliament after Munich and declared that the Czechs didn’t need the Sudeten territories for security? “The best security border,” Trenchard said, “is peace.” Sound familiar?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
