May 3, 2006
By Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. and Joseph Loconte
In October of 1938, in the heat
of the crisis over German intervention in Czechoslovakia, Winston
Churchill appealed to the United States to help thwart the Nazi war
machine. ''Does anyone pretend that preparation for resistance to
aggression is unleashing war?" he asked. ''I declare it to be the
sole guarantee of peace." The Allies were not prepared to resist
German aggression at that crucial moment. The result was a policy
of appeasement -- the infamous Munich Agreement -- which abandoned
Czechoslovakia into Nazi hands and set the stage for Hitler's
blitzkrieg in Europe.
In the current standoff with Iran, the West is approaching what can
fairly be described as another Munich moment. Last week Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that no resolution passed by
the UN Security Council could make Iran give up its nuclear
program. ''The Iranian nation," he said, ''won't give a damn about
such useless resolutions." Here is an Islamo-fascist regime
apparently determined to acquire nuclear weapons, destroy Israel,
and extend its radical ideology.
What is the United Nations prepared to do? The Security Council is
meeting to consider punitive action against the regime, but Russia
and China oppose sanctions because of their extensive financial and
strategic interests in Iran. The European Union negotiations
involving Britain, France, Germany, and Iran -- all carrot and no
stick -- have been a huge failure. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
meanwhile, remains a passive bystander.
What should the United States do to avoid another Munich? If the
Security Council fails to confront the Iranian threat, America must
form an international coalition to disarm the regime, enforcing a
range of targeted political and economic sanctions. It must place
the potential use of force squarely on the table.
As America's closest ally, and the only partner able to contribute
extensively to military operations, Great Britain must forge a
strategic alliance with Washington to check Iran's nuclear
ambitions. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony
Blair should hold crisis talks to discuss a range of options. Both
the United States and UK should push for Israel's admission to NATO
as a security guarantee against Iranian threats. Finally, the
Pentagon and the UK Ministry of Defense should discuss a potential
Anglo-American military operation, sending a clear warning signal
to the mullahs in Tehran.
Blair has already hinted at military action to halt Iran's nuclear
development. In addition, British defense chiefs reportedly held
secret talks last month with officials from Downing Street and the
Foreign Office to discuss the implications of military strikes
against Iran's nuclear facilities
No one doubts that air raids against Iran would present serious
political and military risks for both the United States and British
governments. Bush and Blair have approval ratings at all-time lows.
With growing disillusionment in the UK and the United States over
the war in Iraq, a campaign against the largest power in the Middle
East would face strong domestic opposition. For Blair, the issue
could split his Cabinet and the ruling Labour Party and prompt a
rebellion by left-wing backbenchers, who favor a policy of
appeasement toward the mullahs.
Yet the British prime minister and his closest advisers are acutely
aware of the strategic -- and moral -- threat posed by Iran.
Through their experience with Security Council negotiations over
Iraq, they also understand the limits of international diplomacy.
They're likely to conclude that the risks to British national
security of a nuclear-armed Iran outweigh the political drawbacks
of military action.
When Britain and America faced a similar crisis -- a totalitarian
menace and a feckless League of Nations -- they sought one another
out. As Churchill implored his American audience: ''We need the
swift gathering of forces to confront not only military but moral
aggression; the resolute and sober acceptance of their duty by the
English-speaking peoples and by all the nations, great and small,
who wish to walk with them."
Britain will likely walk again with the United States if it is
forced to confront Iran militarily.
Gardiner is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a
former aide to Margaret Thatcher. Joseph Loconte is a fellow at the
Ethics and Public Policy Center and editor of ''The End of
Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler's Gathering
First appeared in the Boston Globe
In the current standoff with Iran, the West is approaching what can fairly be described as another Munich moment.
Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.
Director, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society
Read More >>
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973