Is the Biden Administration’s Strategy Appeasement?

At RealClearDefense Seth Cropsey argues that the Biden Administration is engaging in a policy of appeasement with respect to Iran, not unlike the policy of Britain and the United States before the German invasion of Poland kicked off World War II in Europe:

Khomeinism dictates that Tehran export the Islamic Revolution across the Ummah in a quest for global strength. Israel’s democratic particularism is inimical to Iran’s theological universality, while the U.S. is the crusader-usurper that stands with Israel blocking Iran’s strategic path.

Because Iran’s goal is regional conflict, the U.S.’ attempts to “deescalate” the situation only guarantee a wider war. The prudent move would have been to allow an Israeli strike in the north shortly after 7 October, while using U.S. naval air power and rapidly deployed tactical aircraft and air defense units to demonstrate to Iran the real cost of escalation. By contrast, the Biden administration blocked an Israeli offensive in the North while also restraining action in Gaza. This is coherent only if the Biden administration is correct that Iran seeks de-escalation, and that it will only attack if “provoked” by an Israeli or American countermeasure.

This assumption is as farcical as it is dangerous. Mr. Biden is committed to a policy of restraint that allows Iran to harass and probe the U.S. and Israel, escalating at a time of its choosing after it has thoroughly prepared the battlefield. Iran is proving this in Lebanon, where Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, both under IRGC control, are eroding Israel’s surveillance system in the north in preparation for a major attack. It is doing so in Syria, setting the conditions for an attack on al-Tanf, a U.S. base that sits astride the Baghdad-Damascus highway on the Syrian-Iraqi-Jordanian border, the natural logistics route for Iran to support Hezbollah and Syria in a conflict with Israel. Iran is playing for time, setting the stage for a much broader set of operations that are meant to end America’s Middle Eastern position.

I’m not entirely convinced by Mr. Cropsey’s argument largely because I don’t think the analogy he’s using is particularly strong. Is Iran actually expansionist? I mean in a way different from any other Islamist country that professes the unity of all believers in Islam? It’s not that I don’t think that Iran is a threat, particularly to Israel, but that I don’t think it’s a threat to us. Iran is no Germany and a genuinely expansionist Iran would be receiving more pushback from the Gulf Arab states than Iran is receiving. Saudi Arabia is unlikely to join ranks with Iran regardless of what either Israel or the United States does.

In my view our policy with respect to Iran should be one of negative reciprocity. And were Iran to be so injudicious as to detonate a nuclear weapon, our policy should be to stand out of the way.