—a rather thoughtful piece, though a bit harsh on Mr. Steyn, who offered exactly the right take on Neville Chamberlain: “an honorable man who believed he was acting in the interest of his country”—just as Churchill eulogized him after Chamberlain’s death in 1940.
It is reassuring to know that Iran is (thank goodness) not Nazi Germany; and that the Iran nuclear deal and Munich are not analogous. But some of Mr. Reuter’s sentences rest uneasily next to each other.
If Iran “does not possess the economic strength to sustain a war with any first-rate military power,” that’s also comforting, provided there is any real possibility that the first-rate military power would ever decide things had become so bad that it was necessary to go to war with Iran.
“Iran’s military is weaker than its economy….unable to turn the tide of the Syrian civil war” stands oddly alongside: “Iran does not need a strong navy or air force to project power when it has a land bridge to the Mediterranean Sea via Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.”
It may likewise be true that “No government yet has intentionally committed suicide” (in this case by lobbing a nuclear bomb, and having one lobbed back).
But speaking of projecting power, what of the possibility that area nations, without the use of any bomb, would rush to accommodate the goals of a nuclear Iran—like the nations of eastern Europe, from Slovakia to Soviet Russia, hastened to accommodate Hitler after Munich? And what exactly will those goals comprise?
This may be the one point of comparison one between two very dissimilar scenarios and tyrannies.
Churchill implored: “Study history, study history. In history lie all the secrets of statecraft.” History does not repeat. Human nature remains unchanged.