Tag Archives: appeasement

International news

‘Peace for our time,’ 2.0?

Eighty years ago, a British prime minister stood before the world after meeting with Adolf Hitler and declared there would be “peace for our time.”

Neville Chamberlain’s prediction in 1938, of course, proved to be tragically flawed. World war broke out in September 1939. He was run out of office and has been labeled the world’s most shameful appeaser.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe today we witnessed a reprise of that moment with Donald J. Trump’s appeasement of Vladimir Putin. Yes, I am going to equate those two hideous examples of weakness.

The president of the United States of America today stood before the world and actually accepted the word of a former KGB spy over the exhaustive work of our intelligence community that the Russians attacked our electoral process in 2016.

Putin said there is “no evidence” of interference. Trump — if you can believe — then denigrated the work of our CIA, the director of national intelligence, the National Security Agency, the FBI, the Department of Justice, which all have said the Russians launched a full-scale attack on our electoral system.

How in the world is history going to judge this shameful exhibition of weakness, of appeasement? The two leaders met today in Helsinki behind closed doors. They faced the international media and then we all heard back here at home our commander in chief give tragically short shrift to this attack on our system of government.

I won’t go as far as former CIA Director John Brennan, who declared Trump’s performance an act of “treason.” I am, however, inching closer to that conclusion.

We have just witnessed a disgraceful display of weakness by the leader of the world’s strongest nation.

Move over, Prime Minister Chamberlain. You’ve got company in the diplomatic hall of shame.

International news

Iran nuke deal: good or bad for the world?

I’m going to withhold final judgment on the Iran nuclear deal for a little while as I try to wrap my arms around what President Obama calls “historic” and what his critics — to no one’s surprise — call an “appeasement.”

I remain hopeful that the framework, as I understand it, is going to cut off “pathways” for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, as the president said today.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/237747-obama-hails-historic-iran-nuke-deal

If I had one misgiving about the impending deal it is the end of the economic sanctions. The European Union is going to end the sanctions on Iran almost immediately, while the United States will lift them in accordance with verification that Iran is remaining faithful to the terms of the agreement.

The U.S. portion of the sanctions removal sounds reasonable and verifiable, to my understanding of what was hammered out over the course of several months.

There are lots of nuts and bolts to this deal. The Iranians are going to stop enriching uranium at some locations, will transfer capabilities from one nuclear plant to another and juggle all kinds of contingencies in accordance with what the bargaining nations agreed on.

The result, though, must ensure that Iran does not build a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis, of course, oppose the deal. They’ve said all along that no deal is better than virtually anything that was discussed publicly with regard to the negotiation.

Congressional Republicans are blasting the framework. One GOP lawmaker used the “appeasement” language, conjuring up memories of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s declaration that Europe had found “peace in our time” in negotiating with Adolf Hitler just before all hell broke loose in September 1939.

Let’s not go there.

Instead, the principals have until June to hammer the details out. Congress will get to weigh in.

Iran’s nuclear program appears headed in another direction — away from its construction of a nuclear bomb.

I’m left to wonder initially: What can be so wrong with that?