Which Way: Chamberlain's Or Churchill's?

Shortly after his inauguration in January 2009, President Barack Obama removed the bronze bust of Winston Churchill that had been displayed in the Oval Office as a post-9/11 commemoration from Great Britain.

Was that just a décor makeover or was it symbolic of unease with what Churchill stood for — the rejection of Neville Chamberlain's peace at any price and the courage to do what it takes to defeat evil?

A fourth round of sanctions were imposed on Iran last week. Yet the times continue to have similarities to the late 1930s, when weakness and disunity among allied powers enabled Hitler to reorder Eastern Europe and absorb Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Now, just as then, diplomatic actions allow time for Iran to proceed in its military buildup — this time with nuclear weapons. Israel's enforcement of the arms blockade against Hamas-controlled Gaza has brought almost universal condemnation. Meanwhile, Iran's assertion, following Israel's botched flotilla boarding, that its Revolutionary Guard would escort the so-called "peace and freedom" convoys to Gaza "with all their powers and capabilities," was met with relative indifference.

Given the short step between Iran's gaining nuclear weapons and those devices finding their way into terrorists' hands, this fog of moral ambiguity is puzzling and unsettling.

Allegedly peaceful diplomacy will solve the problems with Iran. However, resurrecting Cold War policies for terrorists and rogue states ignores their author’s, George Kennan’s, prerequisites. For him the Marist/Leninist worldview mirrored traditional Russian ruling class neurotic insecurities about retaining power despite archaic, fragile political systems. Kennan believed the Soviets would not pursue the “hazardous, systematic plans of a Hitlerite Germany”, but always seek to undermine Western nations through various strategies short of war. Soviet leadership would not risk national resources and their dominance against adversaries possessing sufficient power, and demonstrating a clear readiness to use it.

Such parallels do not exist for the war on terror in general, or for the current Iranian regime. The massive deaths sought through jihad provide these Islamic fundamentalists both the means and objectives to usher in the Twelfth Imam, while destroying Israel. Their acceptance of violent death dominates allegiances to family, tribe, or country. They see no imperative for retaining a viable economic remnant. Therefore, the deterrent quality of force (mutually assured destruction) becomes useless.

The sanctions are pathetic. After voting in favor, Russia announced there was no problem supplying Iran with an air defense missile system, and additional nuclear power plants.

Victory, and even survival, instead requires vigorous, costly engagement along a full spectrum of diplomacy, including application of espionage and military force. But engagement requires continuous attacks against Iranian leadership, not population. A few willing adversaries must force meaningful forfeitures from this regime, before Israel must again enforce the nuclear non-proliferation protocols.

I watched the documentary “For Neda” on HBO last night, about the beautiful young lady murdered during post-election demonstrations on the streets of Tehran. I don’t think you can watch this and not think that the international community must do all it can to isolate this criminal state, to promote regime change from within. A recent Jerusalem Post editorial promoted serious sanctions, primarily a blockade of refined fuel into the country. While Iran exports a lot of oil, it has no refining capabilities so must import all its fuel. No fuel at the pump will bring more people to the streets calling for the dictator Khameini’s head - he’s the real power in the country, Ahmedenijad is just his tool.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.