Worse Than Chamberlain

Two columnists offer deservedly scathing assessments of Barack Obama's foreign policy "success" with Iran. Brett Stephens, counting himself among the President's "inevitable" critics, sums up his assessment of the "deal" as follows:

So let me rephrase the president's question: Is targeted military action against Iran's nuclear facilities -- with all the unforeseen consequences that might entail -- a better option than a grimly foreseeable future of a nuclear Iran, threatening its neighbors, and a proliferated Middle East, threatening the world?

Thomas Sowell makes a similar argument and draws further on the parallels of this "agreement" with that between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler before World War II:

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

It is interesting that, as Sowell notes, Iran publicly disputes the very nature of the "preliminary introduction to the beginning of a tentative framework for a possible hope of an eventual agreement": Will Iran's thick-headedness prevent even Obama from being able to pretend he has triumphed? I hope so, for neither current public opinion nor the "opposition" party seem to stand in his way.

-- CAV