• Focused on the needs of our clients

  • Independent and trusted by our clients

  • Committed to the success of our clients

  • Effective solutions for our clients

Points of View

Rossoff & Company’s Points of View is a forum for industry experts, leading finance professionals and senior Rossoff & Co. professionals to provide insights and commentary on current news stories, financial market themes and industry dynamics.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
Posted by on in Points of View
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 1332
  • 1 Comment
  • Print

MUNICH OR REYKJAVIK

When Netanyahu spoke before Congress to denounce the deal that the Obama Administration is negotiating with Iran, he made the inevitable comparison to Munich. In September of 1938, Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and other Western powers negotiated a deal with Adolf Hitler that gave Germany major portions of largely German-speaking Czechoslovakia in return for Hitler’s promise of peace in Europe. Chamberlain returned to Great Britain declaring that he had achieved “peace for our time.”  In a year, Europe would be at war and Chamberlain would resign his office in disgrace. Henceforth, “Munich” would become a metaphor for any disastrous policy of appeasement that leads to dishonor and catastrophe. Obama was negotiating a Munich-like deal, Netanyahu implied, attempting to appease the bellicose Iranian regime by allowing Iran to build its nuclear capability and, with the blessing of the West, become a major nuclear power in ten year’s time. He didn’t say it, but surely Netanyahu wanted to echo Churchill’s rejoinder to Chamberlain in 1938:  “England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war.”

In many ways Netanyahu made a powerful speech, but the Munich reference fell a little flat. Perhaps we’ve heard it too many times. Munich was hauled out to justify many of our aggressive policies during the Cold War, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Even as recently as 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry derided our failure to combat Bashar Assad in Syria as “our Munich moment.”  Not every foreign policy dilemma is as freighted with danger as the Munich crisis of 1938, just as not every threat to a civilian population is an impending genocide or Holocaust. At least not as far as the American public is concerned (although the Iran crisis may look that way to many Israelis).

Furthermore, Netanyahu left himself a little too open to the Obama retort. Nothing new in the Netanyahu speech, said Obama, and the Prime Minister of Israel failed to provide a workable alternative, since America has no intention of going to war with Iran. Here is where Netanyahu should have picked a different historical analogy. Instead of asking us to consider Munich, he should have led us to contemplate Reykjavik. In 1986, Ronald Reagan held a summit with Mikael Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union, in Reykjavik, Iceland. The two men, mostly working without a script, came tantalizingly close to an agreement to completely eliminate nuclear weapons from the arsenals of the two countries. At the last minute the negotiations fell apart, over Reagan’s insistence that the US be permitted to continue development of the Strategic Defense Initiative, known as Star Wars, a far-fetched missile defense system that was likely infeasible and never built. At the time, Reagan was widely derided for coming so close to an important agreement and then walking away from the table. But within a few years the US and the Soviet Union negotiated important nuclear arms reduction agreements and, of course, the Soviet Union collapsed. Sometimes walking away from the table is a sign of strength in a negotiation and can help produce an eventual favorable outcome. As experienced negotiators know, walking away has a powerful affect when it is based on reality:  the party that walks away must be in the more powerful position and the other party must have a greater need for the agreement.

Netanyahu attempted to get this message across in his speech. He asked:  why are we conceding eventual nuclear power status to the Iranians? The Iranians need the deal more than we do. Drive a harder bargain and walk away – or force them to walk away. In the meantime, ratchet up the sanctions again. Like Gorbachev, the Iranians will be back at the table and, like the Soviet Union, their system will continue to weaken.  

A deal with the Iranians will be announced shortly and hailed by the Obama Administration as a breakthrough. Israel and Saudi Arabia will wring their hands and the Republicans will stew. One party will be clearly rejoicing – the Iranians. There will be celebrations in Tehran – the sanctions will be lifted, the Iranian economy will strengthen and the nuclear program can continue, with some limitations. Will the world be safer?   

 

Rate this blog entry:

Comments

  • Ray Minella Wednesday, March 18, 2015

    Good column.
    As usual, President Obama sets up a false choice, between his "reasonable" view (negotiate with Iran) or pick the straw man that he proceeds to set on fire (war with Iran). There is a middle choice: ramp up sanctions, cripple the Iranian economy, cause the people to revolt against a government that doesn't represent their views or address their needs (remember the Shaw?), and then deal with the (hopefully) more reasonable government that follows. Someone like the Green Movement in Iran. You remember them....they were the only insurgent movement that we did't support in the Arab Spring. But I digress.
    The most important thing Netanyahu said was "...when Iran starts to act like a normal country, you can treat them like a normal country". Iran doesn't even call itself "Iran", they refer to themselves as "The Islamic Republic". Iran does not believe in the Westphalian Order (as does the United States and Western Europe), but rather in empire. There is no history in the Middle East of representative democracy, only expansionist empire: the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Ottomans. Country lines were drawn in the Middle East by western powers, not by people in the Middle East. The Iranians believe that it is their duty to advance the cause of "believers", and it is their duty to lie (if necessary) to "unbelievers" if it will advance the cause of "believers". That's what is in the Quran, and they believe it. That is why someone in Iran's leadership declares Israel should be "wiped off the map" about every six weeks. It is against the Quran for Muslims to ever give up land to "non-believers". Bad news for Spain, worse news for Israel. If you were Netanyahu, would you be comfortable with Iran having a bomb? It would give Iran the ability to do a better job on the Jews in seven minutes than Hitler did in seven years.
    My prediction: if Iran agrees to a "deal" with the Obama administration, Iran won't honor it, Saudi Arabia and Egypt (at the very least) will get nuclear weapons, and we will have nuclear proliferation in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the world. As you know, the Sunnis and Shiites have never had a Thirty Years War.
    Is it possible that our feckless response to Russia (in Ukraine), Syria, and ISIS (in Iraq) have their roots in the administration's quest for an Iranian nuclear deal? Russia's client is Iran, and Iran's client is Syria. We are currently allowing Iranian militia to attack Tikrit, after refusing the Iraqi government"s requests for aid. Kerry has denied that all of the above are not related to Iran, so I guess it's not true.

Leave your comment

Guest Tuesday, November 21, 2017