One must exercise extreme caution before comparing current events to those that led to World War II. However, the recently concluded Big Powers “deal,” which eases economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for a limited slowdown in its enrichment of potentially weapons grade uranium, has some disturbing parallels to another Big Powers “deal” that may have set the stage for the World War II:  Munich in 1938.

By September 1938, Adolf Hitler had been the dictator of Nazi Germany for five years.  Hitler’s seemingly insatiable appetite for territorial gains at the expense of smaller or weaker nations had become apparent to the world.  In what turned out to be a vain attempt to appease Hitler by granting his “last territorial demand,” British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain sat down in Munich with Hitler and his Axis partner Benito Mussolini of Fascist Italy and representatives of other Great Powers.

Hitler, who already had mastered the art of bluffing his way into gaining significant concessions from European leaders, persuaded Chamberlain and his fellow heads of government that ceding parts of the vulnerable state of Czechoslovakia in which the German language was predominant would sate Hitler’s appetite for liebensraum, or living room—areas into which Germany could expand.

Not represented at the table was Czech leader Eduard Benes (1884-1948) who was bullied into caving into Hitler’s outrageous demands by Chamberlain and his French counterpart.  Chamberlain returned to Great Britain waving a copy of the agreement, stating there would be “peace in our time.”  Chamberlain received worldwide praise for forestalling through diplomacy what might have been another war in Europe.

Of course, history would soon prove that Chamberlain’s appeasement efforts were an utter failure.  A year later, on Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler sent his army into Poland, which triggered World War II in Europe.  The cowering Chamberlain whose name came to be identified with the futility of trying to appease dictators and tyrants, was replaced as British Prime Minister by Winston Churchill in May 1940.  After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 brought the United States into World War II, Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt provided the voice and the vision that ultimately defeated the menace of the Axis powers.

As to Eduard Benes, he managed to survive World War II and the Nazis only to be victimized again by the Soviet Union, the other major totalitarian regime in Europe.  Under dictator Joseph Stalin, the USSR forced Benes to give up Ruthenia, the easternmost province of his country.  He later agreed to the establishment of a Communist dictatorship in 1948 in order to avoid a civil war.

Fast forward 75 years to the recent Geneva gathering of representatives of the P-5 +1, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.  Foreign ministers of all six nations, including Secretary of State John Kerry, met in round-the-clock sessions to achieve what numerous breathless media commentators called a “historic breakthrough.” The result was an agreement under which the United States and the European powers would roll back some of the economic sanctions against the Iranian regime in exchange for a slowdown in Iran’s uranium enrichment program.  The foreign ministers had met a few weeks earlier to discuss the same kind of agreement, which was denounced at the time by the French foreign minister as a “sucker’s deal.”

Assurances have been given that the Geneva deal is not a rerun of Munich.  The deal has been sold as a “test” to see if the recently elected “moderate” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is indeed a leader who can be trusted and who has sufficient authority to assure compliance.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in contrast to Eduard Benes, did not quietly acquiesce to the Iranian deal, stating that it was not a historic breakthrough but a “historic mistake.”  Netanyahu and other states in the volatile Middle East are deeply distrustful of the regime in Iran despite its recent smiling facade.  Israel and Saudi Arabia worry that Iran can follow the playbook of North Korea in 1994, under which North Korea was given permission to use heavy water, aluminum tubing and other ingredients to produced a nuclear weapon with its “assurances” that those items would only be used for “peaceful purposes.”

We are too painfully aware of the fact that North Korea, now led by the comically unstable Kim Jong Un, indeed did develop and successfully test nuclear weapons.  The options of the United States to deter aggression on the part of North Korea are now forever limited by the fact that such an immature and unstable leader possesses and has threatened to use nuclear weapons that could hit Seoul, Tokyo or the American territory of Guam.

Now we are asking to trust yet another dictatorship, that of Iran which since 1979 has fomented hatred toward the United States, which it calls the Great Satan, and Israel, which it calls the Little Satan.  

Just weeks ago, on the anniversary of the 1979 Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by government-backed “demonstrators,” there were organized anti-American demonstrators on the street in front of the former U.S. Embassy, shouting “Death to America,” and burning the American flag as if nothing has changed.  

Are we expected to just ignore such demonstrations?  Are we supposed to “trust” that the theocracy of Iran, which is under the full control of the Ayatollah Ali Khameini, has truly moderated its stance and will honor the limited commitments in the Geneva accord?

Fortunately, members of the U.S. Congress from both parties have expressed grave concerns about the terms of the Iran deal. They also have taken steps to assure that if during the six months time frame for the agreement, Iran violates its terms or uses the delay to gain time to push forward in its quest for nuclear weapons, the sanctions can be immediately re-imposed and even made stronger.

The danger is that Iran might take advantage of the current deal and the perception that the United States has retreated from its predominant position of strength in the Middle East to move its nuclear program forward. If it were to do so, it would be virtually a turn of a screwdriver away from joining North Korea in the nuclear weapons “club” of fanatical regimes.

Such a development is not only unacceptable, it is unthinkable.  Let us hope that the leaders of the Great Powers in 2013 show greater backbone and realism than did their counterparts at Munich in 1938.