Posts Tagged → red line
Give appeasement a chance
Yes, the “Iran Deal” is appeasement of a dangerous American enemy. Yes, it looks like disgraced British prime minister Neville Chamberlain has arisen from the dead, and declared “Peace in our time” with Iran.
(Chamberlain traveled to Germany three times in 1938 to meet with Adolf Hitler, who pinky- promised him that Germany had no intention of invading more of Czechoslovakia, or any of Poland, or France, or England or or or… and then Germany invaded all of those places, and more, and proved how foolish it is to believe the promises of totalitarian homicidal maniacs like Adolf Hitler or the Iranian mullahs)
Yes, American administrations have rightly said for at least fifty years “We do not negotiate with terrorists.” And what is the “Iran Deal” but direct negotiation, and direct bilateral signatures by the American president, no less, which fully legitimizes the terrorists. This tends to undermine our own credibility in the long run, with terrorists and their victims alike.
Yes, setting “red line” one after another, only to run out of red pens and out of buckets of red paint to draw any more red lines, because Iran had already crossed all of them, and then not holding Iran accountable for crossing them, sends the wrong message. It tells Iran that no matter what, they can probably get away with murder, if they call it something else.
Yes, throwing our allies under the bus (Israel, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait) when they no longer suit our superficial goal of creating the impression of a “peace deal” is really bad form. And then criticizing Israel for defending its citizens against cross-border rocket fire, because self-defense might mess up the “peace deal,” puts the self-defender in the hot seat, and Iran, the aggressor, in the driver’s seat. This is just bad chess.
One of my greatest concerns is that JD Vance, the Iran deal’s greatest salesman, is so un-likable and abrasive and arrogant, that as the the de facto nominee in 2028, he will cost us the presidency. I 1000% want a Republican president to win the 2028 election, and more and more it looks like Marco Rubio is the one to do it. JD Vance has a sour personality, he just radiates hostile disdain for anyone who disagrees with him, and I do not believe enough Americans will vote for him to make him president. This is perhaps my biggest issue with the “Iran deal”: The wrong guy is trying to sell it.
We can go on and on here, and critique the “Iran deal” line by line, idea by idea, action by action. But, we need to give appeasement a chance.
No, the Iran deal” is not peace by any definition, and it comes with a lot of warnings to Iran, and promises of more bombings if Iran does anything wrong. Yes, it is open appeasement, and no, Iran is unlikely to stick to its end of the deal. However, consider the short-term benefits:
a) Gasoline prices dropped immediately, b) oil markets began leveling out immediately, c) Republicans have less of a likelihood of carrying the millstone of high fuel prices and a less-than-perfect economy around their necks as they enter the mid-term election season, which culminates this November. If the Republicans can survive this election cycle, and maintain control of the US House and the US Senate, then President Trump is not a lame duck for 2027 and 2028, but rather a jet-fueled, super-charged, hypersonic vehicle for even more much needed change.
And if Iran does in fact go back to its old terrorist ways, then Daddy Trump will have no problem reminding them who carries the belt.
So, yes, yes, I know, people are unhappy with the “Iran deal,” but let us give it a chance to bear fruit, if not for years, then at least for the next few months.