Baileywikipedia III

Referring to a slightly older comment from BB, regarding the supposed wisdom of an appeasement strategy in Iran.
I'm going to skip the part where BB deals with the argument that Iran should be attacked as though it has attacked Israel, since I know of nobody who advances that argument save for BB himself for the sake of answering the argument.
My position has ever been that Iran should be deal with sternly based on what it has already done, namely breaking the NNP treaty to which it is signatory, failing to heed UN resolutions, and threatening Israel and others.
On to the part worth treating:

The recent UN talk of sanctions makes this a very interesting issue, of course, since the world has essentially told Iran that it is not allowed to enrich uranium. Given that many if not most of our allies would not support military action, even in the face of evidence of nuclear weapons in Iran, it seems that the only practicable as well as the only moral option at this point is negotiations and the imposition of sanctions. It worked in Iraq (until Bush invaded), and it could work in Iran.

1) If our noble Western allies are unwilling to face down Iran when it does not have nuclear weapons, just imagine how bold they will be once Iran possesses nuclear weapons. Picture the response to Iran's next round of demands coupled with European fear of a nuclear attack.
2) Sanctions in Iraq produced exactly the sort of "peace in our time" situation that should be avoided with respect to Iran, though it should be pointed out that the real reason that Iraq's military was no threat to neighbors is because the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War saw relatively aggressive enforcement of the types of UN demands with which Iran refuses to comply.
Despite the relatively strong action is disarming Iraq through UNSCOM, Iraq actively cheated throughout. The cheating was confirmed by UNMOVIC, and overwhelmingly chronicled by the Kay/Duelfer Iraq Survey Group publications.
Iraq today, minus the actions of the U.S. and the U.K., would probably have Hussein still in power and poised to have sanctions lifted. U. N. Security Council nations France, Russia, and Germany were all rather keen to lift sanctions since each nation was owed billion$ by Saddam Hussein's regime (Mirage aircraft and Russian tanks are not cheap).
Additionally, Iraq would be poised to restart chemical weapons production today if sanctions had been lifted in 2003.

The strategy in Iraq was not an appeasement strategy, and regardless the strategy in dealing with Iraq did not work as BB appears to suppose.
In fact, it is very likely the example set in dealing weakly with Iraq that gives Iran the confidence to thumb its nose in the UN's direction. That, and North Korean boldness in pursuing nuclear weapons (it's worth noting that Korea seems to be dealing with Iran in weaspons technologies--not to mention China).
With the West's response to Iraq, particularly the lack of cohesion among the Western nations as they compete for economic benefits (see the reluctance of nations owed money by Iraq to take a hard line, the United States excepted), Iran learned an important lesson.

If only the Western nations could learn that lesson in conjunction with the lesson of WW2 appeasement.