I read the article, it didn’t propose any solutions, just an opinion that the US should withdraw from their closest allies in the region.
That doesn’t sound like a tenable option, particularly when there’s real opportunity for these nations to have actual normalized relationships and be a counterbalance to Iran and China in the region.
A major world shipping lane goes through there, and of course, the area is also resource rich. I don’t foresee the US abdicating their stance as the guarantor of free trade; it would be geopolitically dangerous (and clueless) to do so.
What’s more, the author doesn’t address that the current foreign policy - up until recently, and may again still - worked pretty well for the west. Oil flowed and ships sailed. Incursions primarily stayed within the region. A perfectly ideal solution? Of course not, but utopias are exceptionally rare throughout history.
And yes, the headline is clickbait. It infers that the multi-decade US strategy is wrong, but then mentions in multiple instances, that the strategy hasn’t yet had a chance to play out due to foreign actors. Shouldn’t we fully test the experiment first before doing a 180 and snubbing our allies in the region?
The Middle East has been on fire for millenia, but it’s in vogue to say that America is the root of all problems in the world
I see you didn’t read the article and are just responding to the headline.
Maybe the author should have chosen a better headline? If you want me to read something, maybe don’t begin with some bullshit that’s clearly untrue?
You sure, though? I mean US is the biggest enabler of it and also active participant. I really wouldn’t say clearly untrue.
I read the article, it didn’t propose any solutions, just an opinion that the US should withdraw from their closest allies in the region.
That doesn’t sound like a tenable option, particularly when there’s real opportunity for these nations to have actual normalized relationships and be a counterbalance to Iran and China in the region.
A major world shipping lane goes through there, and of course, the area is also resource rich. I don’t foresee the US abdicating their stance as the guarantor of free trade; it would be geopolitically dangerous (and clueless) to do so.
What’s more, the author doesn’t address that the current foreign policy - up until recently, and may again still - worked pretty well for the west. Oil flowed and ships sailed. Incursions primarily stayed within the region. A perfectly ideal solution? Of course not, but utopias are exceptionally rare throughout history.
And yes, the headline is clickbait. It infers that the multi-decade US strategy is wrong, but then mentions in multiple instances, that the strategy hasn’t yet had a chance to play out due to foreign actors. Shouldn’t we fully test the experiment first before doing a 180 and snubbing our allies in the region?
Could be in vogue and also true