Is the Iran Deal Another Munich?

On November 24, 2013, The United States along with Great Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia reached an agreement that would freeze for six months Iran’s nuclear program . The nations would continue negotiating with Iran during this time for a final agreement.

Michael R. Gordon wrote an article entitled “Accord Reached with Iran to Halt Nuclear Program,” which was published in The New York Times on November 25, 2013. The reporter explained that on November 24, 2013, president Obama called the agreement “significant and tangible” progress in a diplomatic campaign that had been going on for five years since he took office. The president said, “today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure, a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.”

According to the deal, Iran’s stockpile of uranium over 20%, which is close to a weapon-grade fuel, would be diluted so it could not be used for military purposes. Iran also agreed that it will not build more centrifuge or new enrichment facilities. The agreement does not require that Iran stop enriching uranium to a low-level or dismantle any of the existing centrifuges. The United States agreed to give Iran $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Part of this amount would come from the $4.2 billion of oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks.

Gordon pointed out that another hot issue was the building of the heavy water reactor near Arak, which could produce plutonium to build a bomb. Iran would not dismantle the plant. It agreed not to produce fuel or install additional reactor components.

The Associated Press reported that government officials on the condition of anonymity revealed that at least five secret meetings had occurred between the United States and Iranian officials since March 2013. President Obama at first kept America’s allies in the dark. United States diplomats met in secret in Muscat, Oman with Iranian officials. They began laying the groundwork for the diplomatic agreement of the so-called P5 +1 group of nations (United States, Great Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia) and Iran.

Criticism over the Iran agreement

The accord with Iran brought a storm of criticism from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and many of the Gulf nations as well as from members of Congress from both parties. Several Israeli leaders voiced their condemnation of the deal.

Joel Greenberg wrote an article entitled “Netanyahu: Iran Deal a Historic Mistake,” which was published in The Miami Herald on November 25, 2013. The reporter indicated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated the following: “What was achieved last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, but a historic mistake. Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward acquiring the world´s most dangerous weapon.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu blasted the accord and stated the following: “This is the first time that the leading world powers have agreed to uranium enrichment in Iran. Sanctions are being removed in return for cosmetic Iranian concessions that can be nullified in weeks.” The prime minister of Israel again raised the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear program. He said that “Israel is not obligated by this agreement, the regime in Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel, and Israel has the right and duty to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

Joel Greenberg also explained that the Iranian accord drew strong rebukes from other Israel leaders. Yuval Steinitz, Minister for Strategic Affairs, stated the following regarding the agreement: “It does not roll back Iran’s military enrichment capability, only freezes it in its current status.” He compared the Iranian deal to the failed agreements with North Korea to curb its nuclear program. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said over the radio in Israel that the accord was “the greatest diplomatic victory for the Iranians perhaps since the Khomeini revolution (Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979).”

Foreign Minister Lieberman pointed out that the deal with Iran did not require the dismantling of the centrifuges, nor did it require removal of fissile material from the country. Israel has strongly requested that the United States reach an agreement that would totally halt the uranium enrichment, which was a condition that Iran had refused.

Opposition to the Iranian deal in the United States

Critics in the United States complained that the deal would only delay the Iranian program and it would reward that rogue nation for institutionalizing the status quo. Reporter Michael R. Gordon explained that some experts believe the that it was unlikely that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would ever agree to close the door on the option to develop nuclear weapons. The reporter explained that Gary Samore, who worked at the National Security Council during President Obama´s first term, said, “at the end of six months, we may see another half step and six more months of negotiations-ad infinitum.”

President Barack Obama contacted many leaders of his party in Congress to ask them to support the agreement between Iran and the United States and other nations. He also stated that he doesn’t need the approval of Congress to go ahead with the deal announced in Geneva, Switzerland. One more time, this president is ignoring the constitutional role of Congress in approving foreign treaties and accords. However, many leaders of his party did not like the Iranian accord.

Anita Kumar wrote an article entitled “Doubt Over Deal on all Sides,” which was published in The Miami Herald on November 25, 2013. She explained that Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated on November 24, 2013 the following: “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions. I do not believe we should further reduce our sanctions, not abstain from preparations to impose new sanctions on Iran should the talks fail.” The Cuban American senator from New Jersey also said that the accord does not proportionately reduce Iran’s nuclear program for the relief that it is receiving.

Kumar pointed out that Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York, warned that the “disproportionality of this agreement” makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will come together and pass additional sanctions when the legislators return to Congress in December 2013. Schumer said “I intend to discuss  that possibility with my colleagues.” Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from California, was in favor of the agreement.

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican from Florida, said that the accord “shows other rogue states that wish to go nuclear that you can obfuscate, cheat, and lie for a decade, and eventually the United States will tire and drop key demands.” Speaker of the House John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, requested that the White House provide a briefing to the members of the House of Representatives. He stated that “the interim deal has been and will continue to be met with healthy skepticism and hard  questions, not just of the Iranians, but of ourselves and our allies involved in  the negotiations.” The House of Representatives had already voted for additional sanctions against Iran in July 2013, a measure that the Senate had not considered up to now.

Some believe that the Iranian accord is similar to the Munich agreement of 1938

Ben Shapiro, author of the bestseller Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America, wrote an article entitled “Worse than Munich” in Breitbart on November 24, 2013. He criticized President Barack Obama for reaching a “cowardly” deal with the Iranian regime, a nation dedicated to the destruction of Israel and who is pursuing nuclear weapons in multiple violations of United Nations resolutions.

Shapiro believes that there are indeed many similarities  between the Iranian accord and the agreement  reached by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler in Munich in 1938. This agreement allowed the Nazi leader to keep the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia by promising no further aggression in Europe. We know that this appeasement was a great mistake as this only increase the desire by Nazi Germany to commit further acts of aggression and annexation of countries in Europe. Winston Churchill denounced in the British Parliament the Munich agreement by stating the following: “We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude… We have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road…”

Shapiro wrote the following: “The West´s appeasement of Iran is significantly worse than the appeasement of Hitler in 1938 for a variety of reasons… Iran has made clear its desire to wipe Israel off the map. Its current leader, supposedly moderate, Hasan Rouhani, has refused to acknowledge the Holocaust as historically accurate, and participated in a rally calling for Israel’s destruction, and according to Iranian reports stated, ‘The Zionist regime is a wound that has sat on the body of the Muslim world for years and needs to be removed’.”

Shapiro explained that in 1938 Great Britain was dealing from a position of military weakness with Nazi Germany. However, today it is just the opposite. The United States currently deals from a position of strength, and chooses weakness. He believes that Israel is on its own. Obama’s deal with Iran makes clear that if Israel attacks Iran, it does so at the risk of losing American support, even if Iran may retaliate against Israel.

Shapiro explained that Obama´s agenda is anti-Israel and anti-American influence in the Middle East. He believes that such a position makes war a “near-inevitability.” This reporter, as well as others foreign-policy experts, know that appeasement causes war.

To make matters worse, the president of Iran stated that what Obama told the nation about the agreement was incorrect. Ali Akbar Dereini wrote an article entitled “Hardliners Criticize Geneva Nuclear Deal” in The Miami Herald on November 28, 2013. The reporter explained that Mohammad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister,  said on state radio that some construction will continue at the planned Arak heavy water reactor, even though that was prohibited by the Geneva nuclear accord. Zarif explained that building projects such as the installation of new equipment or work toward making the reactor operational would continue. Obviously, Israel, Saudi Arabia and members of Congress which opposed the deal could charge that Iran is violating the agreement.

Time will tell if Barack Obama’s deal with the rogue regime of Iran is an accord that is worse than Munich. It certainly has not solve the enrichment of uranium by Iran. It has not even stopped completely the development of a plutonium bomb by this terrorist nation.

This writer believes that the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration is a disaster, especially for our ally Israel. Instead of stopping completely Iran’s uranium enrichment, the United States and the five other nations have now agreed that Iran can continue to do it, even if it is at a lower grade. The accord may have made war inevitable with Iran in the near future.

China and Russia which have very friendly and close relations with Iran must be, indeed, very pleased. These two nations are now convinced under Obama the United States is a superpower in retreat. One thing is certain, none of our enemies are afraid of our weak President Barack Obama. Unfortunately, our allies do not trust and are deeply concerned of how unreliable is the president of the United States. Obama has continued to severely endangered our national security with this ill-fated nuclear deal with Iran.