The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
The Debate over the Munich Analogy
by Steven Stotsky
January 14, Iran's Foreign Minister Javid Zarif made a publicized visit
to Lebanon to lay a wreath at the tomb of arch-terrorist Imad Mugniyah.
Shortly afterwards, it was announced that Zarif would be attending the Munich Security Conference to meet with American and EU officials over Iran's nuclear program.
On January 27, EU High Commissioner, Lady Catherine Ashton, delivered the EU's official statement on
Holocaust Rememberance Day leaving out any mention of the Jews. That
same day in France a "Day of Anger" march featured demonstrators
chanting "Jews go Home" and "Jews, France is not your country."
January 29, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper delivered a
report to the Senate Intelligence Committee stating that "Iran has the
scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce
nuclear weapons. This makes the central issue its political will to do
of these items received much attention from the media. Maybe the media
does not view them as newsworthy. But another factor may be the
reluctance of the media to confirm Israel's dire view of the threat
posed by Iran. This was evident in a heated exchange in November
following news reports of a breakdown in negotiations between the United
States and the Iranians over Iran's nuclear program.
The exchange was triggered by a Wall Street Journal editorial by Bret Stephens who called the current negotiations with Iran "worse than Munich (Nov.
25, 2013)," referring to the infamous Munich Agreement of 1938 where
Great Britain and France sold out Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler.
Stephens chastised the West, including the United States, for failing to
use its overwhelming advantages as negotiating leverage against Iran.
In his view, the British and French at Munich in 1938 at least could
claim that neither had "the public support or military wherewithal to
stand up to Hitler in September 1938." Stephens' editorial generated a vigorous reaction. Washington Post
columnist Eugene Robinson derisively retorted, "But even commentators
who should know better are resorting to the empty Munich analogy."
Peter Beinart, a detractor of Israel, wrote in the Daily Beaston Nov. 26, 2013 after the Geneva conference,
and Israeli hawks are rushing to call the interim nuclear agreement a
capitulation and Obama another Chamberlain. It's another sign the
doomsayers don't know their history... For Netanyahu and his American
allies, it's always 1938, because if it's not 1938 and your opponents
aren't Neville Chamberlain, then you're not Winston Churchill. And if
you're not Churchill, you've got no compelling rationale for wielding
scoffed at the "Nazi analogy" as "laughable" because "Hitler used
Europe's most advanced economy to build its most advanced military and
for a time, conquer almost the entire continent." By contrast, "Iran
would still be surrounded by a host of stronger countries" including
Turkey and Pakistan, India and Israel, most of whom possess nuclear
also contended that Iran "lacks the ideological power" because of its
economic weakness and offered reassurance that Iran "is not suicidal."
invariably steers the discussion back to alleged Israeli obduracy in
dealing with the Palestinians. He accused pro-Israel hawks of having
"stoked American Jewish fears of a second Holocaust" in order to relieve
pressure on Israel to address Palestinian grievances. Beinart couldn't
resist a parting shot at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whom
he described as ignorant of history and someone who seeks to "exploit
historical analogies for political and ideological gain."
Goldman, who also uses the pen-name Spengler, crafts thoughtful
analyses that incorporate underlying societal processes often overlooked
by political commentators. He delivered a powerful refutation of
Beinart's arguments in "The Dead's Envy for the Living," where he observed,
civilizations are the most dangerous, and Iran is dying. Its total
fertility rate probably stands at just 1.6 children per female, the same
level as Western Europe, a catastrophic decline from 7 children per
female in the early 1980s. This has created what one analyst calls an
"apocalyptic panic" that fuels Tehran's aggression.
assessing Iran's next moves, Goldman concludes, "Iran must break out
and establish a Shiite zone of power, or it will break down."
His description of the Iranian predicament has a familiar ring, recalling Hitler's obsession with acquiring Lebensraum (living space).
Indeed, Goldman has Hitler in mind. He continues,
theocracy displays the same apocalyptic panic about its demographic
future that Hitler expressed about the supposed decline of the so-called
Aryan race. Unlike Hitler, whose racial paranoia ran wild, Iran's
presentiment of national death is well founded on the facts. Iran
is not so ready to go gently into that demographic night, however. It
lashes out against enemies real and imagined, and the enemies it
imagines in its worst nightmares are the Jews.
describes a paranoia common to German and Iranian ideologies and
worries that the Iranians may be driven to extreme actions just as the
Germans were. His focus on the impact of declining birth rates on the
decision-making of the Iranian regime deserves more attention.
is a common perception that nations are inclined to war when there is
an excess of young males in the population. But 20th century history
teaches a different lesson. Germany, on the eve of World War II, had to
compensate for its "missing million," a reference to a deficit of males
of prime combat age who otherwise would have been born had it not been
for birthrate-suppressing effects of World War I. Although, the German
birthrate partly recovered after the war, it never again approached
ideologues were obsessed with increasing German birthrates; the regime
extolled women who had many children and portrayed childbearing as the
most important duty of a National Socialist woman. The Nazis instituted
theLebensbornprogram, arranging unwed procreation and even kidnapping suitably "Aryan" children from conquered countries. As Goldman points out, Iran has experienced a severe birth crunch and its leaders understand what that means for the future.
Compounding Iran's fears for its future as due to its diminished birthrate are the ominous portents from its external situation.
Beinart views the external circumstances facing Iran and concludes that this will restrain Iran from aggression.
reading of history is narrow. The Germans too felt penned in. Peering
eastward they saw an awakening giant, Russia, undergoing rapid
industrialization and modernization. German fear of being overtaken by
Russia became an obsession after the Bolsheviks seized power. German
policymakers feared encirclement by traditional powers, Britain and
France, and emerging Russia, as well as the distant United States.
Iran's leadership, a similar paranoid obsession with outside powers,
both existing and emerging, is discernible. Goldman fears that Iran's
leadership may feel compelled, as the Nazis did in the 1930s, to act
before irrevocable factors doomed them to oblivion.
are parallels between the behaviors of these two irredentist states.
The Nazis undertook rapid militarization in contravention of
international treaties. They tested international resolve with
small-scale interventions in the Rhineland and Spain and after
confirming a weak response by the democracies, annexed part of
Czechoslovakia and Austria before engaging in unbridled conquest. These
aggressions were justified on the grounds of righting historical wrongs
and on ethnic ties. Fifth columns played a crucial role.
Iran pursues its nuclear and missile programs against international
consensus. At the same time it intervenes in Syria, utilizing its fifth
column, Hizb'allah, in Lebanon, and stirs up Shiites in other states.
And Iran inveighs against Israel as a historical mistake that needs to
be rectified. One can discern similarities between the incremental
German steps in the 1930s and Iranian testing of the resolve of the
Beinart and others, Iran's limited capabilities exclude serious
comparison with the 1930s. That is a superficial reading of history.
German strength on the eve of World War II was impressive. But only a
few years prior, Germany was not nearly as formidable. As late as 1936,
when Hitler ordered the occupation of the Rhineland, his own generals so
feared confrontation with the French army that a contingency plan was
crafted in which the German army would retreat if the French army
offered serious resistance. Today, Iran's military limitations are
widely acknowledged, but one lesson of the 1930s is how fast
circumstances can change, especially when the militarists are
Goldman sees another parallel in "the response of the world's powers to the emergence of this monster."
the 1920s, diplomats hammered out treaties, even treaties outlawing
war. The League of Nations was established to resolve conflicts before
they turned into wars. The international framework unraveled with the
Japanese invasion of Manchuria and then the Italian assault on Ethiopia.
Both aggressions revealed the fecklessness of the international bodies.
Some see parallels in recent years to North Korea's circumventing
nuclear agreements and the failure to contain Iran's drive toward
nuclear weapons capability. Central
to any analogy between Iran and Germany in the 1930s is the convergence
between the Nazis paranoid hatred of Jews and that of the Iranian
regime. Goldman observes:
theocrats hate and fear the Jews for the same reason that Hitler did.
The "Master Race" delusion of the Nazis twisted the Chosenness of Israel
into a doctrine of racial election; for the "Master Race" to be secure
in its dominion, the original "paragon and exemplar of a nation"
(Rosenzweig) had to be exterminated.
last observation cuts to the core of the debate over the Munich
analogy. Then as now, people were divided on how seriously to take the
extreme threats issued against the Jews. Beinart
is not alone in imagining Israeli manipulations or in seeing only
political scheming behind the Munich analogy. Media Matters, an
influential leftist media organization, described those making the
comparisons as "rightwing."
On ForeignPolicy.com, Elias Groll regards the Munich "metaphor" as the
handiwork of neo-conservatives. National Public Radio [NPR] aired
slanted debates on the negotiations with Iran in which Netanyahu is
described as "far right-wing" and Israeli concerns are depicted as
views on the current negotiations with Iran often line up along
political lines, there is a more fundamental divide on the importance
given to Israel's security. It is not surprising that Media Matters
employed M.J. Rosenberg, a vitriolic anti-Zionist. ForeignPolicy.com
featured a blog by Stephen Walt, whose spurious scholarship claimed a
nefarious "Israel Lobby" controls American policy. Columbia University
Professor Kenneth Waltz (in Foreign Affairs) even welcomed "a nuclear-armed Iran" to counter Israeli-American hegemony. The New York Times
casts Prime Minister Netanyahu as the villain in the Middle East peace
process and treats with skepticism anything he has to say, including his
warnings about Iran. NPR's narrative is similar to the Times.
The Times did publish an op-ed by Ari Shavit, Israeli columnist for the left-wing Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz
and a critic of the Netanyahu government. Although Shavit blamed the
Bush administration for the current state of affairs, he saw the danger
of the accord, writing,
Iran's race to the bomb would be slowed down -- but an accord would
guarantee that it would eventually cross the finish line. The Geneva
mind-set resembles a Munich mind-set: It would create the illusion of
peace-in-our-time while paving the way to a nuclear-Iran-in-our-time.
divergence from those who otherwise share his political orientation is
telling. Those who hold Israel's security as paramount view with alarm
the parallels between the crisis over Iran's nuclear program and the
situation in 1930s that culminated in catastrophe. Those who demonstrate
less concern -- or none -- for Israel's security tend to disparage the
analogy and depict Israel's insistence on the dismantling of Iran's
nuclear program as threatening world peace.
is fitting to conclude a discussion of the "Munich analogy" with an
observation about the Munich Security Conference. The conference is an
annual affair where world leaders meet. Its purpose should not be
confused with the Munich conference of 1938. But there is one
similarity. In both cases negotiations over an ominous threat to the
world excluded the one nation most immediately affected by whatever was
agreed upon. In 1938 that was Czechoslovakia. In 2014, that nation is
Steven Stotsky is Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/the_debate_over_the_munich_analogy.html Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.