Obama VS Chamberlain

When Chamberlain went to Munich on September 29th, 1938, to ask Hitler to discontinue, as he would have said, his plans to take over Poland, Chamberlain had good intention, but bad execution. He claimed that the appeasement was for, "The peace of our time," and that his agreement with Hitler, that which Hitler publically disregarded 7 days later, would allow Europe to continue war-free, sparing it from the trauma and anxiety associated with war. It is well known that Chamberlain failed utterly to accomplish anything with the appeasement, and war did in fact break out the following year. Recently, President Obama went to Geneva to negotiate peace terms with Iran regarding them physically possessing nuclear weapons, and failed to accomplish anything. In fact, Iran slapped America in the face by completely undermining America's request, and this is the cause for much controversy and ill feelings toward Obama as of late. In comparison to Chamberlain's utter failure at Munich, Obama's inability to impose his country's will is far more severe than what happened in 1938. While it is true that both Britain and the US practically surrendered to Germany and Iran, respectively, Nazi Germany was much larger of a world power in its day when compared to modern day Iran. In addition, Britain was in a weak state economically and militarily, while the United States, although isn't in tip-top shape economically due to the recent recession, has one of, if not, the largest and most powerful militaries in the entire world. To have to surrender to a country whose inferiority on the world scale of sovereignty is an obvious step in the wrong direction. In defense of Chamberlain, he didn't have the power of hindsight in terms of WWII. The same cannot be said for Obama and Iran. Obama had clear historical evidence and resources to show that appeasement, in large part, does not work. Ben Shapiro, who hosts his own radio talk show and is author of a bestseller, said “The deal with