It's common, I suppose, when diplomats give away the farm, to bring up what happened at Munich in 1938.
On that occasion, a British prime minister failed to conceal his desperation and we remember how things worked out. But there was actually more to it than that. America's nuclear talks with Iran are the subject of this piece, but let's stay with the past for a moment.
Neville Chamberlain made three errors, not one. Yes, he committed the beginner's mistake of showing his hand to a man who played high-stakes poker for a living.
But he also failed to preserve a credible alternative, meaning he had nothing to bluff with. "Play straight or I'll walk away" doesn't work, if the other guy knows you're all in.
And the partner he brought to the table, France, wanted a deal worse than he did. The country with a genuine interest to protect -- Czechoslovakia -- wasn't even allowed in the room.
Now Iran. The U.S., along with a consortium of western nations, has been attempting to talk that country out of developing a nuclear weapon.
An interim agreement was reached last Thursday, which President Barack Obama immediately hailed as a "good deal" that "succeeded exactly as intended." Peace in our time, and all that.
But while the negotiations certainly succeeded as one of the parties intended, a good deal this certainly was not.
It merely kicks the can down the road for three months, until the real nitty-gritty has to be faced. But why the delay?
U.S. concessions to this point are already a horror show. They leave Iran in possession of key bomb-making facilities. They presume good faith by a nation that has consistently lied to the UN about its weapons program.
And they confront neighbouring states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt with an urgent need to develop their own bombs. Just what the most unstable region in the world needs -- a nuclear arms race.
Yet despite all this, Iran upped the ante at the last minute on a key issue that should have been non-negotiable for America. The answer was obvious -- walk away.
Which side needs an agreement more? With oil prices collapsing and sanctions biting, it should have been Iran.
Yet rather than break up the talks, U.S. negotiators asked for time to accommodate Iran's new demands -- that is, to retreat even further. The Iranians guessed right. Their opponents most wanted the deal.
All the parallels from Munich are in view here. Obama let the mullahs see he was desperate for a success to firm up his political legacy.
The U.S. has been so weakened by its ineffectual policies in the region, negotiators had no credible strength to fall back on.
And most of America's "allies" at the table wanted a deal even more than Obama did, to preserve valuable trade relationships. Ironically, a firm-minded ally was at hand -- the U.S. Congress.
As the American position became known, 367 members of the House of Representatives, 129 of them from the president's own party, wrote to Obama stating their deep reservations. This was an unprecedented rebuke.
All 100 members of the Senate, from both parties, have also expressed their alarm. Both houses demanded he consult them before proceeding further.
But the president has no intention of bringing anyone into the picture who disagrees with him.
This is a first-class disaster in the making. The U.S. has carried these negotiations far past the point of no return.
The Iranians have taken their measure of Obama, and know exactly what they are dealing with.
The Middle East is now almost certainly condemned to a nuclear future, with all the devilry that promises.
Such diplomatic incompetence, or worse, will haunt us for generations to come.
