Although appeasement, conventionally defined as the act of dysfunction through concessions aimed at avoiding war, has been seen as an effective and honorable foreign policy strategy, it symbolizes cowardice, failure and weakness since the Munich Conference, with Winston Churchill describing appeasement as “someone who feeds a crocodile and hopes he will eat it for the last time.”  The reappearance of the term “appeasement” with respect to the West`s policy toward Iran`s nuclear program, and more specifically the recent agreement with Iran, makes it a particularly appropriate time to re-examine the 1938 Munich Agreement. In retrospect, this pact is widely regarded as a political failure of the highest possible proportion of Allies. According to some, a perfect opportunity to stop the Nazi advance before it really began was missed. Since the post-war investigation and the assessment of the chain of events that led to World War II, governments have striven not to “appease” dictators, which is now seen as conflict prevention, as Chamberlain hoped, but to further strengthen aggressive action. U.S. presidents invoked the failure of appeasement in 1938, when they decided to go to war in Korea. Vietnam and Iraq in 1990 and 2003, as well as numerous presidential campaigns. (Ripsman &Levy 2008, 148) The word itself is so decried that it cannot be seriously considered a diplomatic strategy. J. David Singer says, “The emotional symbolism of appeasement has such a mastery of the Western political mentality that anything that has the slightest smell of appeasement is rejected with remarkable force.” (Klein 1991, 2) Faced with tensions between the Germans and the Czechoslovak government, Beneš secretly proposed, on September 15, 1938, to give Germany 6,000 square kilometers (2,300 square miles) to Czechoslovakia, in exchange for a German agreement, 1.5 to 2.0 million Sudeten Germans who would drive Czechoslovakia. Hitler did not respond.  British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain`s foreign policy is inextricably linked to the events of the Munich Crisis and the policy of appeasement and resonated in the following decades as a parable of diplomatic failure.  With “Waterloo” and “Versailles”, the Munich Conference was a disastrous diplomatic result. Since then, the lessons of Munich have profoundly marked Western foreign policy. U.S. presidents have invoked these lessons to justify war in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.  After the bombing of Libya, US President Ronald Reagan said: “Europeans who remember their history understand better than most people that there is no security, no security in the appeasement of evil.”  An agreement was reached on September 29, and on September 30, 1938, at about 1:30 a.m..m, Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Benito Mussolini, and Édouard Daladier signed the Munich Agreement. . . .