Iranian Arsonists Warn of Middle East Fire Hazard
show comments
  • Matthew Brotchie

    “Looking at the Middle East today, the likelihood that America will at some point have to become more engaged in order to stabilize turbulent countries is higher, not lower, because of the White House’s decision to drastically reduce its presence in the region. Responsible internationalism—not isolation, and not an overly heavy presence or aggressive posture—is the best way to help the Middle East.”

    Professor Mead, what would you say to the growing number of citizens who simply have no interest in further engagement with the Middle East? Why should we care about the stability of the region? I believe this is a rising populist sentiment that needs to be addressed for a “Goldilocks” policy the get the support it needs.

  • “Responsible internationalism—not isolation, and not an overly heavy presence or aggressive posture.”

    I think the above result is harder to accomplish than dancing on the head of a pin. I think “responsible internationalism” will inevitably drag the United States back into the region militarily. The best advice ever given about the Middle East is that offered by Colin Powell gave. “If you break it, you own it”.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.