While we tend to think of "appeasement" as a sign of weakness...(and maybe we should in certain cases), there is some precedent for it with regards to how a lot of our modern presidents have dealt with such situations (especially when they're ones that don't involve any potential casualties on US soil)
One could argue that almost every president in the last 30 years has engaged in some form of appeasement with China.
Russia was allowed to annex Crimea in 2014 with virtually no interference apart from some toothless sanctions and rhetoric (in fact, one could probably make a solid case that our appeasement of Russia started at the tail end of WW2)
We appeased Iran with cash
Bill Clinton went with approach of encouraging Bosnians to make territorial concessions in order to "prevent future conflict"
Iran-Contra under Reagan was an appeasement attempt on two fronts
People tend to speak out of both sides out for their mouth with regards to how our leaders interact with foreign entities (especially nefarious ones)
Any form of "appeasement" is met with criticisms for "giving in to evil foreign dictators"
Any form of "actually doing something about it" is met with accusations of being "hawkish" or "escalating tensions"
Most presidents (regardless of party) are put between a rock and a hard place when citizens are seemingly equally critical of both "doing nothing" and "doing something"
I'm sorry, I have an issue with how you seem to be defining "appeasement." To be clear, my understanding of the definition is one I'm borrowing from the
Cambridge English Dictionary, "
the act of giving the opposing side in an argument or war an advantage that they have demanded, in order to prevent further disagreement"
So, no, Pres. Clinton's example wasn't actual "appeasement" -- though it appears he was pushing appeasement by the Bosnians.
Iran-Contra was definitely not appeasement. Now, you can argue that Reagan broke his rule of not negotiating with terrorists, since one aim was the hope that selling weapons would get Iran backed terrorists, which had been promised, to give up captives. In reality, it seems this would be the opposite of appeasement, since the other goal of the sale was to create income that would allow the US to fund the war in Nicaragua.
Russia was not appeased when they took Crimea. Regardless of whether you view the sanctions as effective or not, they are the opposite of appeasement. This was merely a case where we chose not to declare war to protect a country, but instead tried to use diplomacy to object to Russia's actions. That isn't appeasement.
Last, giving Iran money was not appeasement. Instead, many Western countries wanted Iran to quit developing and not produce nuclear weapons. As an incentive, we agreed we'd pay the money we owed Iran, that our government had held onto since the Iranian Revolution that had been paid for US weapons that were never supplied. However, had the Iranians not agreed, we still would have owed them the money.
www.rferl.org
