Who Needs Neville Chamberlain?

Two news stories yesterday perfectly illustrate the moral bankruptcy of today's American foreign policy.

In the first, the Associated Press reports the death of the President of Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, and who himself has been called the "Butcher of Tehran" for carrying out mass executions of political prisoners in 1988 for that barbarous, outlaw theocracy:

"We don't anticipate any change in Iranian behavior, and therefore, the Iranians should not expect any change in American behavior when it comes to holding them accountable," White House national security spokesman John Kirby said.

Kirby added the U.S. expects the change in Iran's leadership will not change Iran's support of Hamas, Hezbollah or the Yemen-based Houthis who have targeted commercial shipping vessels in region in the region since the start of the war in Gaza.

He added that U.S. officials expect Iran to continue supplying Russia with drones and other weaponry for its war in Ukraine. [bold added]

The second story shows what a farce the phrase holding them accountable above is:

The State Department offered its condolences Monday after the deaths of two Iranian leaders, including the Islamic Republic's president, a "baffling" move considering Iran's well-known human rights abuses, a human rights lawyer says.

Cropped from image by unknown photographer, via Wikimedia Commons, license.

Didn't the Administration just claim a big "win" with the passage of funding to aid Israel (which Iran recently attacked with hundreds of drones and missiles) and Ukraine in their respective wars?

Why in hell are we even speaking to Iran, much less sending condolences regarding the death of such an evil person?

And, while we're bringing up (hundreds of) things our President and his lapdog media seem to have forgotten, let's observe that Iran has been in a state of war against the United States ever since it attacked our embassy in 1979. Ignoring that hasn't worked out very well.

Ignoring every escalation since hasn't, either.

When I described our foreign policy as bankrupt earlier, I had been about to call it brainless, but then wondered whether gutless was better. But courage requires an appreciation of danger and a need to act that only a rational assessment can lead to.

The fact that it was our technology and tactics that saved Israel from Iran's barrage -- which should have been a red carpet for a convoy of bombers to Tehran -- shows that we aren't brainless.

So, America has the mind required to appreciate the evil of the regime in Iran and has already developed the means to destroy it. Only a lack of conviction can explain the actions of the State Department yesterday.

If everything Iran has done since its "revolution" in 1979 hasn't been enough to draw a rebuke from America and a plan to destroy its military capabilities and topple its theocracy, one wonders what it would take to do so.

If an offer of condolence is an empty gesture, why bother? If not, why make it in this case?

As wrong as Neville Chamberlain was to believe that giving Hitler what he wanted (at the moment) would cause him to stop, at least he believed (or pretended to believe) he was helping bring about peace.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what our government hopes to accomplish by half-heartedly supporting the good side in two wars overseas -- while treating the country waging one of those wars and allying itself with Russia in the other as if it is anything other than the walking dead.

Continuing to treat Iran as if it is a civilized country is far more valuable to it -- and a greater act of treason to the good side in an undeclared war -- than handing over Austria ever was to Adolf Hitler.

-- CAV