What happened at Munich? The leader of a weaker power (Britain) was faced with a stronger, more technologically advanced power that had shown it was not shy about using force. That leader (Chamberlain) attempted to appease the stronger power by giving it what it wanted.
What those who talk about appeasement act like they don’t believe is that *we* (the US) are the stronger, more technologically advanced power that has shown it is not shy about using force. States like Iran are in the position of Great Britain of ‘38. When US commentators talk about the folly of appeasement, leaders of Iran should hear that *they* would be foolish to attempt to appease the US, that no amount of giving in will have an effect, that their only option is to develop a credible deterrent (which, given the relative sizes of the countries and economies, really means: nukes).
Appeasement is about the relationship of the weaker to the stronger. Good guys vs. bad guys is irrelevant unless you actually believe that leaders of Iran *view themselves* as cartoon villains.
I’m not saying I have any great ideas what to do about what seem to me very likely to be Iranian nuclear ambitions. What I’m saying is that up-is-down-ism isn’t likely to generate any.
Grr.
