History in danger of repeating itself in Iran over nuclear arms

Zachary Kaye Guest Writer

Historical events are rarely congruent to one another in more than a loosely theoretical way. The value in studying history with the intention of bettering one’s understanding of current events lies not in finding direct analogies, but rather in understanding themes and how past events have led to our present world.

With this in mind, it is not unwarranted to compare the West’s political interaction with Iran today with Europe’s treatment of Germany in the 1930s. And from here, it is crucial to understand the grave risk the world is running with its current policies, and the immediate need for democratic leaders to learn the lessons of history.

By clinging to the comprehensible desire for immediate peace, Europe and the United States are sacrificing the chance for an acceptable, peaceful, long-term solution - one ideally involving an open, democratic, and non-nuclear Iran.

Iran is pursuing a thinly-veiled race to acquire a nuclear weapon. Possession of such a weapon is perhaps philosophically justifiable, but it is not in the interest of Western democracies or regional stability.

Europe and the United States have taken the stance that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon is intolerable. At present, unfortunately, their efforts to curtail the development of nuclear technology seem to hold a lesser priority than their interest in avoiding a truly forceful (although, not necessarily military) confrontation with Iran. This is indicated by the West’s regular voicing of resistance towards Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, followed by that country’s defiance.

This resistance is met with nothing but more rhetoric and empty threats. With China and Russia on the United Nations Security Council, a passage of multi-lateral sanctions is unlikely.

Continuous discussions of the issue prevent diplomatic or military escalation at the moment. They also enable Iran to arm itself, and therefore permit the entrenchment of a dangerous, aggressive regime. To entice a nuclear-armed and increasingly self-confident Iran to pursue any form of ideological, structural, or political reform will be more difficult than to confront a conventionally armed one. Thus, the present supremacy of short-term interests over long-term goals ultimately harms the international aspirations for a lasting peace in the Middle East. Some 70 years ago, the same ascendancy plunged the world into catastrophe.

It is not overstepping the bounds of historical retrospection to suggest that the World War II was largely precipitated, or, at the very least, Adolph Hitler’s aggressive behavior encouraged, by England and France’s policies of now seemingly unbelievable degrees of appeasement. The shortsightedness of this policy is fully apparent.

Because of these countries’ understandable reluctance to engage in any political or military actions that could provoke a large-scale conflict after the World War I, The Third Reich was allowed to first unburden itself of the Treaty of Versailles, then acquire Austria, and finally, to gain control of Czechoslovakia, before its invasion of Poland in 1939.

Those with foresight could not prevail upon those who sought immediate and predictably ephemeral rewards to pursue a permanent solution to the crisis. The world paid for this mistake with World War II.

Iran, let alone a nuclear-armed Iran, is a serious threat to permanent Middle Eastern stability. In its efforts to maintain peace (an understandable endeavor), the West should not lose sight of the long-term goal of liberalizing the state. The standing threat of a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, as is placating the country and allowing the current regime of intolerant radicalism to reinforce its position with nuclear arms. Western leaders should heed the lessons of the 1930s. It is far too easy and far too dangerous to exchange a permanent solution for an expedient fix. The world cannot afford to make that mistake again.