I just had somebody argue with me about the merits of the JCPOA that gave $150bn to the Islamic regime in Iran because “at least it contained their Uranium,” and after taking a few deep breaths to calm my nervous system, I realized I need to explain to people the meaning of the word “appeasement.” Appeasement, at least in this context, is a strategy of U.S. politics manufactured by the regime and its lobby in Washington that convinces U.S. politicians that the “only way” to deal with the regime is to give them billions of dollars. This cleverly strategized propaganda convinces politicians of a false dilemma where there are only two options: 1) fund, empower, and enrich a terrorist regime, or 2) face the threat of nuclear empowerment and world war. The strategy of appeasement is equivalent to the frogs in boiling water analogy. The temperature of the water increases slowly over time so the frog normalizes its experience and no longer notices it is being boiled alive. Similarly, the U.S. keeps giving more and money to the regime against the impending “threat” of what it might do, not realizing it is empowering a terrorist regime beyond containment. The “effective” strategy of appeasement has long been debunked and the majority of common-sense, clued up analysts have since recognized that the JCPOA was objectively a terrible idea. You don’t do deals with terrorists. You don’t give them money. You don’t empower them. You don’t trade with them. You don’t do business with them. You stand together, as a community of sensible world leaders for a free and democratic world, and you ice them out. How hard is this to understand?
See Tweet