Appeasement

The New York Sun editorializes:

The announcement by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency that he had reached what the New York Times characterized as “something of a breakthrough” with the Iranian regime is igniting all sorts of speculation in respect of the talks that began earlier today at Baghdad. The IAEA announcement came on the eve of the Baghdad parley between the Iranians and representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations plus Germany. Our own estimate is that this is going to be a classic case of how the appeasement will prove to be not in the agreement — if one is finally struck — but in the entering into talks in the first place. The talking is the appeasement. ...

It would be one thing if the Iranian regime had defeated us on the field of battle and we were suing for peace. Absent such a catastrophe, what in the world are we doing in talks with the mullahs and their camarilla? It is not as if, say, the Iranians have elevated to office via a free and democratic election a government that speaks for the Iranian people. We are treating with a regime lacking in legitimacy about an issue that, by its nature, cannot be settled peacefully, save by a democratic revolution in Iran itself. The Atlantic is dialing back its estimate of war to 37% from the 48% as recently as March. That’s according to the Atlantic’s dial. On the Sundial of Middle East War Prospects, the very existence of talks with Iran is nudging the dial in the opposite direction.

Whole thing here.