The above phrase became infamous when less than one year after it was stated in 1938, with much fanfare pomp and circumstance by the British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain, it became a joke, a sad one.

We are seeing today a replay of the same seduction of peace.

I wrote before that president Obama is a very lucky politician. On most objective measurements, he is probably one of the worst presidents ever, yet he manages to stay on and continue to fight his fights.

Napoleon once said that he prefers lucky generals to good ones. Napoleon was a wise man. Personally, I do not believe in luck. I believe in divine intervention, though.

The question is, is this president the luckiest man ever? Has he got divine intervention guiding him, or is he the biggest fool since Neville Chamberlain?

Let’s start from the Syria debacle: How in the world did he mange to turn this fiasco into what can be stated by him with a straight face to be a win? I cannot understand that other than to invoke divine intervention. It is still too early to say if Syria will actually perform the demands of the UN Security Council resolution, but I believe they will.

The fact is that Syria, Assad, and his supporters see this as a huge victory because it practically ensures Assad’s survival for the next nine months. That will become 12–18 months and by then, he will subdue the revolt with the help of terrible use of force, conventional force, but not less lethal.

So, in truth, this is still a huge blunder by the U.S. but on the face of it, the president can say, “My mission was to stop the use of chemical weapons and I achieved that.” Never mind that he also declared that Assad should go; that was so long ago that no one remembers.

But that all pales into insignificance compared to the Iranian developments. There are three options here:

  • Iran has had their road to Damascus conversion, or
  • Iran is hoping to weaken the effect of the sanctions on them while they continue developing the nuclear weapons, unabashed through lying, stalling etc., or
  • Iran will make a fake effort at negotiations using the usual rouse such as requiring Israel to denuclearize, possibly even Europe, and raising other red herrings all so that the negotiations could fail with them being able to blame the West for the failure, and more importantly with them gaining time without a military strike. Once they do that, Ayatollah Khamenei will issue a fatwa or whatever to justify the development of nuclear weapons and lo and behold, the day after, they will declare themselves a nuclear nation.

I just cannot believe that the first option can be true. In reality, nothing has changed. If Iran’s suffering under the sanctions was enough to convince them to give up their nuclear program, why wait until now? They could have done that years and years ago. Ahmadinejad was a pawn as far as this issue is concerned. If Khamenei wanted to do that, he could have done it a long time ago. Why suffer all this time and wait until you are months away from your goal and then retreat?

The second option seems perfectly set. Between the election of a new president that the Western media is doing EVERY possible thing to paint as a moderate, although he is nothing of the sort, and the Syrian debacle, which exposes Obama as weak, gullible, and naïve, it is the perfect scene for the Iranians to try a maneuver that would leave them practically in the same position with weapons development but lighten the sanction regime. It is, however, a tall order to assume that they will succeed in pulling wool over the eyes of EVERYONE. It is not only Obama; they also need to convince Obama’s team who surprisingly have proven more adept at handling these types of regimes, and even more so, France and the UK who, amazingly, are carrying the torch here. That is a big assumption to make.

No, I think that the third option is their main play here. Of course, if they get their way under the second option, even better, but I do not think they expect it or that they need it. What they do need is to gain time to finish the development of the weapons. They need to try and make sure that they do not get attacked especially by the U.S. but also to put as many obstacles as they can in front of Israel attacking them. They also need, to some extent, to be able to point a finger at the West and blame the West’s “intransigence” and “aggression” toward the Iranian people for their need to develop nuclear weapons after they so many times denied that they will ever do that.

My conclusion is that President Obama is likely to look like Neville Chamberlain.

I may be wrong and he may end up being the messiah.

Time will tell, as will divinity!