From: Danny K. Johnson
1SG U.S. Army (Ret.)
Columbus
There is a lesson from history that we ignore at our own risk, to continue on Mr. Don Strietelmeier’s thoughts.
In the years leading up to World War II, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain believed peace could be preserved through concession and negotiation with an aggressive regime. History has judged that approach harshly. Appeasement did not prevent conflict—it encouraged it.
Over the past 47 years, we have seen a similar pattern in how the world has dealt with Iran.
Since 1979, Iran has been linked to or accused of supporting terrorist activity across the globe—from attacks and assassinations in Europe to support of proxy forces in the Middle East. These are not isolated incidents, but part of a consistent pattern.
Yet the response from much of the international community has often been hesitation, negotiation without enforcement, or a quiet “not our war” attitude.
Iran rarely carries out attacks directly, instead relying on proxy groups to do its work. Examples include Hezbollah’s bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 American service members, and the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia. It is estimated that between 800 and 1,000 Americans have lost their lives due to Iran-backed actions, including many killed by Iranian-supplied IEDs during the Global War on Terror. Our NATO allies have also suffered, with civilians killed in attacks such as nightclub bombings in Berlin and assaults on newspapers in Paris. The list goes on.
World War I began with a single assassination, and World War II began with a single act of aggression, proving how quickly conflict can escalate when warning signs are ignored. History reminds us how small events can trigger massive consequences.
History shows that when nations treat growing threats as someone else’s problem, those threats rarely stay contained. They grow, spread, and eventually demand a far greater price.
Appeasement is not just about avoiding conflict—it can enable it. When there are no clear consequences, aggressive behavior continues.
This is not an argument against diplomacy, but against relying on it alone while ignoring repeated patterns.
As a retired member of the United States military, I believe strength, accountability, and unity among allies—not wishful thinking—are what prevent larger conflicts.
If we fail to recognize that, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past.
