Bret Stephens has penned a zinger today in the Wall Street Journal, credibly arguing that Obama’s Geneva deal with Iran is not Munich, it’s worse.
From the piece:
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.
After Geneva there will come a new, chaotic Mideast reality in which the United States will lose leverage over enemies and friends alike.
What will that look like? Iran will gradually shake free of sanctions and glide into a zone of nuclear ambiguity that will keep its adversaries guessing until it opts to make its capabilities known. Saudi Arabia will move swiftly to acquire a nuclear deterrent from its clients in Islamabad; Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal made that clear to the Journal last week when he indiscreetly discussed “the arrangement with Pakistan.” Egypt is beginning to ponder a nuclear option of its own while drawing closer to a security alliance with Russia.
After World War II the U.S. created a global system of security alliances to prevent the kind of foreign policy freelancing that is again becoming rampant in the Middle East. It worked until President Obama decided in his wisdom to throw it away. If you hear echoes of the 1930s in the capitulation at Geneva, it’s because the West is being led by the same sort of men . . .
I would add that at Munich, Britain and France were disgraced, and they got war anyway. With America feckless, Israel will eventually be forced to strike. One way another, we’ll be drawn in, and Obama like Chamberlain, will get war and disgrace.
Only this time, with Israel less likely to do the job the United States military – or a truly effective negotiating strategy – could have done, Obama may get war, disgrace, and a victorious enemy. That is, a nuclear Iran.