The legacy of the last two Democratic presidencies – President Barack Obama’s and President Joe Biden’s – will be the appeasement of Iran in its efforts to dominate the Middle East and eventually expand its influence through the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal.
Obama has been the “Chamberlain” in this 21st-century version of Great Britain’s and France’s appeasement of an evil and dangerous regime. In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought he had a secure peace treaty with Hitler – “Peace in our time,” he promised the British — only to have Hitler break it at the first opportunity by invading the rump Czechoslovak Republic.
By the mid-1930s, Nazi Germany’s plan to dominate Europe should have been clear to western leaders. As Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary:
“[I]n 1933 a French premier ought to have said (and if I had been the French premier I would have said it): ‘The new Reich Chancellor is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!’ But they didn’t do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done, and well-armed, better than they, then they started the war!”
Like Chamberlain, Obama, Biden and Harris seem to believe that “peace in our time” can be achieved by appeasing Iran and strengthening its economy. The result has been an entirely predictable disaster: by receiving sanctions relief and a humongous increase in oil revenues, Iran has been enabled to expand its proxy war against Israel and the United States through its surrogates in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, and possibly Sudan.
The Biden administration has extended Obama’s destructive policy, resulting in an even stronger and more dangerous Iran. Under the Trump administration, Iran was considerably weakened economically and thus militarily. Now it is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear arsenal, which will allow its proxies to operate under the protection of Iran’s nuclear umbrella.
These developments pose the greatest current threat to peace and stability, especially in the Middle East, but perhaps beyond. Historians will understand that today’s Iran is the modern-day version of Nazi Germany and its attempt – for a time successful – to control all of continental Europe. This is not to say that Iran will ever become what Hitler’s genocidal Germany became, but it is to express concern about Iran’s dangerous regional aspirations, based on religious apocalyptic doctrines.
There is only one way to end this threat completely: that is by regime change. The people of Iran have been yearning for regime change since at least 2009. Iran’s unpopular ruling mullahs do not represent the more secular, westernized and even pro-American majority of the country’s population.
Regime change is always risky, because it is impossible to predict what will replace even the most evil regime. The end of Iran’s monarchy in 1979, with the abdication of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was seen by many as progress, only to backfire with its replacement by the mullahs and their Islamic Republic. The threat of Iraq under deposed President Saddam Hussein has been largely replaced by a more adventurous Iran. Similar results have occurred following other regime changes.
Nor would regime change be easy or cost-free, even before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal — a development that would make an externally produced change impossible.
Aside from regime change, the other step that Biden could take would be to work with Israel on preventing Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, this cannot be achieved by more treaties or negotiations. As recent history shows, Iran will simply cheat, as it did after Obama’s 2015 JCPOA “nuclear deal.” The only way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is through a military attack against its nuclear facilities, many of which are very deep underground. This can be achieved through U.S.-Israeli military and intelligence cooperation.
Beware of a trap: Iran might agree to terminate its nuclear weapons program if it truly believed that the alternative would be a military attack. Unfortunately, there is the high likelihood that it would only be saying that to get the Biden-Harris administration off its back, and would continue its nuclear weapons program surreptitiously.
Israel should not give up any military advantage in exchange for intangible promises. Just look at how Russia violated its commitment, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for the latter giving up its nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave the weapons up; in 2014 and 2022, Russia invaded anyway.
Although the United States, even as far back as the Obama administration, has pledged to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no reason why Iran should believe that, considering US appeasement tactics under Democratic administrations.
So the only realistic alternative – the least bad among the series of not very good alternatives – is a joint military attack, as surgical as possible, on Iran’s nearly-completed nuclear weapons program. To allow Iran to cross the threshold and acquire nuclear weapons would pose a catastrophic threat to world peace. Stopping Iran from having a nuclear arsenal would, on the other hand, be a great accomplishment and a lasting positive legacy for the Biden presidency.
In light of Iran’s recent ballistic missile and drone attacks against Israel, and Iran’s history of attacks against Americans going back to 1983 and continuing to recent times, both the US and Israel have a legal, political and moral justification for seeking to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. The only issue is whether the United States has the determination. At the moment, the current administration does not seem to be willing even to allow Israel to go it alone.
The result of inaction will be a terrorist regime with a nuclear arsenal, followed by a global nuclear-arms race. The fault for such a dangerous outcome will lie squarely with the “Chamberlain” Democrats.
{Reposted from Gatestone Institute}
