US-Imposed “Deal” part of “Hitlerian Method” towards Iran: Analyst

As many celebrate the potential softening of the USA’s ongoing, 62 year stint of killing and torturing Iranians for their resources and strategic position, Thomas L. Knapp, director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, reminds us to take every US action or statement with a grain of salt.

Responding to an editorial in the Washington Post noting that Democrats and Republicans regularly compare the US “deal” with Iran to appeasement of Hitler in Munich, Knapp says that comparison gets it backwards.

“The nuclear talks ARE a lot like Munich in 1938,” Knapp agrees, “But it’s Iran acting out the role of Chamberlain in response to a US strategy that’s textbook Hitler.”

The Hitlerian method is this: Invent a “controversy” (for example, “ethnic Germans in Czech Sudetenland are oppressed”). Make a set of demands. If the demands are met, add new conditions. When you’ve pushed things as far as they can go and the other party finally refuses, accuse that other party of acting in bad faith and claim justification for doing what you wanted to do anyway (invade and occupy Czechoslovakia).

The Iran “nuclear weapons controversy” is an invented crisis of that Hitlerian type.

He reminds us that all US spy agencies say Iran does not appear to be after nukes (Israeli spies concur), that the IAEA does not even say Iran “might be” developing nukes, and that Iran is perfectly entitled under international law (and supported by the vast majority of the world) to a civilian nuclear program.  It is the US that has no right to any say in that program whatsoever.

But the US, for reasons which are quite obvious, has imposed deadly sanctions on Iran, targeting all Iranian civilians, and changes the conditions for removing the sanctions “every time the Iranian government agrees” to meet the current conditions.

The US, including Obama, has done this numerous times.  For example, Knapp notes that in March, “all parties seemed ready to sign an agreement – so the US piled on new conditions … at the last minute”, then said Iran had created the impasse.

The new US “deal” with Iran includes “up-front demands on Iran with the dangling fruit of lifted sanctions in the future.” (bold added)

Knapp then makes a prediction: that the US will break the agreement and make new demands within a few months, without ever lifting the sanctions: “the Hitlerian method in spades.”

“Appeasing the US in 2015”, he concludes, “is a bad idea, for the same reasons (and likely to produce the same results) as appeasing Hitler was in 1938″, meaning the US or one of its proxies will invade and attack Iran anyway.  (However, he reminds, as it supposed to be “our” government, it is our responsibility to ourselves engage, lift the brutal sanctions, and ensure our government is in no way used to commit aggression against Iran.)

Indeed, CNN, in a piece serving to bolster the US “Hitlerian method” towards Iran, notes that the US and Israel are still openly (and illegally) discussing plans to commit aggression against Iran: “…the United States would need to use land-based aviation, rather than aircraft carrier-based jets that can’t hold the same payload, and would likely launch an attack from air bases in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Bahrain.”  (This is a threat of force, completely illegal under international law but casually printed in US media outlets on a virtually daily basis.)

A 2009 strategy guide on how to conquer Iran, titled “Which Path to Persia”, produced by the US-based and funded Brookings group, considered the world’s most influential think tank, states that one US strategy for re-conquering Iran should be to try to make it appear to the world that Iran has rejected an amazing “deal”, then use that as an excuse to attack Iran – the precise “Hitlerian method” Knapp describes.  Another option listed is to “leave it to Bibi”, meaning allow Israel to attack Iran as a US proxy, placing as much of the blame as possible on Israel, as the report suggests.

CNN continues: “…if Iran violates the term [sic] of the agreement, that could open up the door for Israeli action…”, an aggressive “attack” on Iran.

And US “Defense” Secretary Ash Carter announced a few days ago that the US will still bomb Iran, despite any deal, if it wants.

Reporter and UK-based colleague on Twitter

This entry was posted in Energy / Environment, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Big Bear

    This argument is not aided by twisted history. It is a well established fact that Czechoslovakia was a “country” invented by the Allies in the “Peace Treaty” they imposed on Germany by starvation at Versailles. In it they included about 40% of Germany’s industrial plant and its population was over 40% German. The Czech’s, however, a bare majority of the population, were placed in power and proceeded to oppress the newly invented countries other ethnicities, especially the Germans, for the duration of the invented country’s pre-World War II existance. For the same reasons the invented country eventually fell apart. Partisan political pseudo-historians lie about these facts but today no reputable historian disputes them because they are indisputably evidenced by multitudinous records and witnesses.

    • Robert Barsocchini

      Interesting aside, but that wasn’t the point at all. You could switch the example to any place Hitler invaded. Doesn’t matter.

      • Big Bear

        My comment addresses specific historical points, which are indubitably established and proven. Your suggestion that it borders “on a defense of Hitler” borders on slander. False history is false and pernicious in all cases. Including this one.

        • Robert Barsocchini

          Point taken. Not intended to slander you, since I’m not interested in trying to eviscerate each other verbally, but rather in just discussing things. I phrased it as a question because some people defend Hitler and do so proudly. Clearly you are not doing that.

          • Big Bear

            No, in fact, as you say, clearly I am not doing that. What I am doing is correcting an erroneous assertion, an assertion of a well-publicized lie which grossly distorts still-pertinent history. I suggest that you read David Hoggan’s The Forced War and Viktor Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit and begin to acquaint yourself with pertinent historical facts — established facts of history as contrasted with partisan propaganda.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            Okay, thanks. I just noticed there is a discussion of this exact point at a posting of Knapp’s article at In the discussion, Knapp confirms his point was not a specific examination of any truth to Hitler’s pretext, in the given example. editor Jason Ditz also enters the discussion and gives a several paragraph summary of the Czech/German situation.

            I also recall that Noam Chomsky states of Hitler’s pretexts that they, like all halfway decent ones, had a “kernel of truth”.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            Just looked those authors up and found this of Hoggan:

            “In following years, author Lucy Dawidowicz wrote that Hoggan maintained a close association with various neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups.”

            “The Myth of the Six Million was one of the first books, if not the first book, in the English language to deny the Holocaust.[32] In The Myth of the Six Million, Hoggan argued that all of the evidence for the Holocaust was manufactured after the war as a way of trying to justify what Hoggan called a war of aggression against Germany.”

            Don’t know about the other guy, but I’m mighty skeptical about both of them now, to say the least…

          • Big Bear

            I suggest you read Hoggan’s The Forced War and consider its evidence, and then you will be in a better position to evaluate the accuracy and intent of comments such as Lucy Dawidowicz’s. And of course Hoggan is by no means the only source on these matters, but The Forced War was a historiographic watershed and is still probably the most cogent overview. Examination of its documentary basis in extensive archival research (Hoggan was a star Harvard history ph.d.), you will be in a position to consider its merits.

          • Big Bear

            Robert Barsocchini, your citation of a patent smear puts my respect for your writing in question, and your failure to acknowledge its problematical character when it’s pointed out increases my uncertainty about your bona fides.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            I don’t care about the critic’s accusation at all, actually. I thought about taking that part of the citation out, but then didn’t care enough to do so. The part important to me is that the guy wrote a book called “The Myth of the Six Million”, arguing that “all of the evidence for the Holocaust was manufactured after the war as a
            way of trying to justify what Hoggan called a war of aggression against

            ‘Nuff said, in my book.

          • kimyo

            the article would be stronger if you removed incorrect information.

            beyond that, the comparison really isn’t that strong. hitler hadn’t had 50 years of bossing the world around and installing brutal dictators wherever he liked. hitler didn’t have nukes and he hadn’t repeatedly threatened to turn czechoslovakia into glass. he wasn’t facing the end of the petro-dollar. he was just beginning to build up his empire, not in the last stages of watching it crumble.

            this is a case where your historical analogy doesn’t quite rhyme.

            lastly, the iran posturing is predominantly for the domestic media, so that we are delivered headlines like ‘obama stabs netenyahu in the back’. it has no connection to reality.

            thus, analyzing the media bogosity to find historical comparisons is not a worthy investment of your time.

          • Robert Barsocchini


            It seems to me more “contested” than “incorrect” information, and “contested” here by a guy recommending books by a Holocaust denier…

            Jason Ditz, editor of, gave an informed account of the German/Czech situation, which I linked to above.

            “hitler hadn’t had 50 years…” There are some good points in this paragraph, imo, but I’m not totally sure what it’s getting at.

            “iran posturing is predominantly for the domestic media”. this is what the Knapp piece was pointing out, and illustrating that that’s what Hitler was doing, too, but not just Hitler – virtually any aggressor ever. It doesn’t need to be Hitler. The choice of Hitler is, as Knapp says at the above link, “orthogonal” to the point, but works because everyone knows Hitler.

          • kimyo

            in terms of likely outcomes, the u.s. occupying iran is nowhere on the list.

            a false flag nuke attack blamed on iran, with the intention of drawing russia into a nuclear conflict seems to be what’s going on here.

            that outcome is not going to be anything like germany in 1938 and thus the knapp analogy falls flat.

            at no point was hitler ever going to nuke berlin in order to get germany on board for ww3. set fire to the reichstag, sure. plant a nuke in lower manhattan? not the same thing, and not at all the same outcome.

            some people stand to benefit greatly from the (engineered) collapse of the dollar. well intentioned articles like yours unfortunately serve to provide a distraction.

          • Big Bear

            I reply above to this egregious smear (“a guy recommending books by a Holcaust denier [sic]”. Shame on you.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            Bear, I may have gotten the wrong impression due to potentially false statements on wiki, I honestly don’t know at this point and don’t have time to investigate. You can alleviate my suspicion in an instant by telling me how many Jews you think Hitler killed. I’m pretty mainstream on this issue in that I’m sensitive about it. It’s a simple question.

          • Big Bear

            Given her obvious smear tactics (detailed above) and given what I do know about the character of Hoggan’s scholarship from reading his magnum opus, The Forced War, I am not prepared to regard this smear-artist’s synopsis and characterization of another book as accurate without reading the book in question. I suggest you shouldn’t be either, and I assert that you shouldn’t be quoting obvious smears with your own endorsement, unless you endorse smears per se.

            This book, as you can learn if you read further into the source from which you quoted this smear, was published without Hoggan’s knowledge or permission — as he established in a legal suit he won — and its title is not his. In endorsing an obvious smear-monger’s obvious smear, you are on shaky ground. The honest thing to do would be to suspend judgment.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            I notice the section on Holocaust denial on Hoggan’s wiki page was edited today:

            (cur | prev) 20:15, 6 April 2015‎ Ezraskid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (36,888 bytes) (-194)‎ . . (→‎Holocaust denial) (undo)

            And the last time his page was edited was Feb 27:

            16:22, 27 February 2015‎ Philip Cross (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,082 bytes) (-124)‎ . . (→‎Holocaust denial: ce) (undo)

            Could be a coincidence.

            If I’m wrong and you’re right, that’s fine, but the whole things seems very weird, and it’s all, as Knapp said, “orthogonal” to his point, anyway.

          • Big Bear

            Yes, I see, the obvious smear that you cited has been edited out of Wikipedia, where it never should have been in the first place — because it was an obvious smear-by-association and not a statement of facts.

            The rest of the Wikipedia article, insofar as much of it is an attack on Hoggan’s work in general terms, often smear terms, that does not engage with the facts of Hoggan’s discussions at all, should be far more carefully and extensively edited.

            That still leaves me wondering about your commitment to ethical discussion in view of the fact that you cited an obvious smear in the first place and then tried to apply it to me as well (below). You owe me an apology and you need to rethink your behavior.

            No reputable historian considers his subject from only one point of view. It is a truism that the “histories” written by victors are not to be trusted. Hoggan, a star Harvard Ph.D., spent six years doing research, notably in Polish diplomatic archives — it was a plum assignment, and he was judged worthy. He reported what he found, honestly and carefully and in detail — you can read it in The Forced War — and it ruined his academic career, because he relates numerous facts which the victors’ histories of the Second World War repress and omit and want to keep hidden.

            The partisan distortion, misrepresentation, and falsification (including falsification by omission) of history is reprehensible and deplorable no matter who does it, no matter what “cause” they think they’re serving, and no matter how self-righteously they do it.

            “Kill the messenger” is a tactic that damns itself.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            I guess I am a bit sorry this story brought Holocaust deniers out of their holes (like “‘Holocau$t’ Lies -Who Profits?” above) to obsess over a minor point about Hitler. This experience has been weird and disturbing.

          • Big Bear

            You should stop it with the smears, Robert Barsocchini. You only smear yourself.

            And why do you want to change the topic? And why do you expect the object of your smears to engage with you in civil discussion of any topic?

            You need to better inform yourself about the history you write about — specifically, Czechoslovakia in the 20s and 30s. I suggested the best text I have read on this topic area, Hoggan’s The Forced War.

            Once you have read it, and apologize for your disreputable behavior, maybe I’ll discuss it with you.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            Six million Jews killed by Hitler. Yes or no?

            If you think it was less, just own up to it.

          • Big Bear

            You continue your bullying, your smears by implication, and your insolence. Your behavior condemns itself. I don’t converse with people who behave as you do.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            Seems a nerve has been hit.

          • kimyo

            i think you should read that book, i plan to check the local bookstores/library over the next few days.

            if you think about it, there’s no surer way to suppress the dissemination of critical information than to tar the author with an (unjustified?) accusation of holocaust denial.

            until you or i read the book, our take on its contents is kind of invalid.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            You’re absolutely right.

          • kimyo

            turns out a (in much need of a good edit) version of ‘the forced war’ can be found on

            i’m about 50 e-pages in (ie: poland, 1920). my observations so far:
            1) what a bunch of douchebags politicians are.
            2) the author’s attention to detail is laudable, but at a party, i’d be strenuously avoiding his corner of the room.

            3) holocaust denial detected: zero.

            it’s weird to read, there’s some verbiage which doesn’t seem quite right and there’s no footnotes in this version. an explanation of this appears in the early part of the text.

          • Robert Barsocchini

            Thanks, Kimyo. I found that link and glanced through the book, too, and didn’t detect any Holocaust denial, either, but I have not been able to look for long enough to make a good assessment regarding why those charges (or smears) are leveled, so I really appreciate your report. If you can, please keep me updated as you continue reading.

            Also, great quote from LaFollette, and very insightful connection to US support for Saudi Arabia today. Really shows the same thing being repeated, same script, almost verbatim: one person points out the hypocrisy and violence of US policy, the herd tramples him.

          • Big Bear

            Yes, yours. Your smear-mongering is vile. Your demand that the target of your smears converse with you — let alone submit to your insolent interrogation — is absurd and vicious.

          • Big Bear

            The facts stated above concerning the creation and character of Czechoslovakia are not “kernels of truth” — they are the facts of the matter, and they exist as facts quite apart from any reference the German regime under Hitler made to them. “Pretext” is, as you surely recognize, a loaded term. It needs to be evaluated in light of facts, not spin or propaganda.

  • ClubToTheHead

    Richard Overy in his “1939: Countdown to War” makes the case that “appeasement” was an attempt to buy time to build an effective resistance to the impending German invasion by its superior war machine.

  • ‘Holocau$t’ Lies -Who Profits?

    More garbage in, garbage out from small minded, anti-German racist, and propagandist Robert Baroscchini.

    Munich was a fair deal, the right thing to do, the area under discussion at Munich was overwhelmingly Germans and they overwhelmingly wanted to be part of Germany, its called democracy & free choice.
    Don’t rely on hate mongering Zionist versions of history.

    There are the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ‘6M & gas chambers’ and there are the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ‘6M & gas chambers’.

    The ‘6M & gas chambers’ are an impossible fraud.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    The tide is turning.

  • guest

    Close but no cigar. We’ve already heard mutually exclusive interpretations from the Obama administration and Iran regarding this ” agreement “. Since it clearly does not mean the same thing to both sides the U. S. will inevitably accuse Iran of breaking the agreement and attack them with ” complete justification “.

  • Rehmat

    Steve Lendman, American Jewish writer, blogger and author commented on the US-Iran nuclear draft: “Hegemons don’t compromise. America is all take and no give. Longstanding US policy calls for regime change. Washington wants pro-Western stooge government replacing sovereign Iranian independence. As long as this policy holds, normal relations with Iran are impossible. Eventual confrontation looms. It’s just a matter of time.”

    Under Iranian Constitution, it’s the Majlis (Parliament), not president Hassan Rouhani to ratify any foreign agreement. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who has the ‘last word’ over country’s security issues, has not made any comments on the US-Iran draft agreement.

    Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who served country’s president for eight years (1981-89), has often said that he never trusted Washington promises because they don’t represent the voices of a sovereign nation.

  • Bad news here. Historic Fail this is a wedge that Vladimir Putin can use an the terms never is a word to not be used in any deal.