Huge difference here IMHO is that the west has been using this line for 40-50 years. At some point it's not "appeasement" and just "diplomacy between countries with differing values are complicated."

Put another way: if you want to call it appeasement, fine, it has worked for a long time. On the other hand, "peace via war" has a terrible track record.

Some people say Iran having a nuke isn’t the threat some think it is.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M

Doesn't seem to have worked in this case. They did not have nukes, they got attacked. How you explain that? How do these good guys protect them against evil guys if not with nukes?

Appeasement for an imaginary weapons program our own director of national intelligence just said they don’t have.

Copy and paste this nonsense argument for Iraq 3 trillion dollars ago.

I must've missed the part where Iran invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.