Dan: Except it is not widely accepted by historians. On this one, I am going to go and get examples, so I don’t fall prey to making a sweeping generalization of my own.
Regarding global Wahhabism and “programming”: I would cite the findings of MI5/MI6 in England that the majority of the threat they (England) face is of the home grown variety. The cells in England are, in large part, comprised of Britons. Yes, you read that correctly: Britons. Not imports from Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan, but Britons. Holland, France and even places like Denmark are facing the same threat, although in those three examples the main element of the threat is from foreign emigres. None of these places is a dictatorship.
Regarding Iran and the bomb: They have the clearly stated intent of acquiring one and joining the Nuclear Club and the clearly stated intent of wiping both Israel and the US from the map. This is not simply rhetoric (on either count). The pointless negotiations and empty threats of the Europeans have indeed wasted time and have done absolutely nothing in terms of slowing Iran down. I’m not worried about Iran invading Florida, I’m worried about Iran lighting a nuke off over Tel Aviv. At that point, there is no conversation. As to their incentive to get a nuke because Israel has one (or, more accurately several dozen): Israel has been possessed of a nuclear capability for quite a while now, so I’m hard pressed to imagine Iran just woke up to the idea that since Israel has them, they need them, too.
Neville Chamberlain applies to the concept of appeasement. The Europeans are appeasing the Iranians, much the same way that Great Britain and France appeased Hitler. Perhaps the analogy is inapt, but the underlying concept is the same: They are giving things away and also reinforcing Iran’s belief that the West is weak and will always prefer to speak before taking action. Iran’s continued intransigence while the Europeans bleat on is proof of this.
