Center for a New American Security

Exum, your really not saying

Exum, your really not saying anything in your article only restating and organizing what has been said over the past year. Some times that needs to be done.

Why binary? Couldn't there be a third choice like being neutral. Null is a third option between 0 and 1 for a tri-state device.

1) Standing the line for Israel is taking a position, the position can be a threshold. Only crossing the threshold causes a response otherwise the US is neutral and does not take sides. That stance can be made known.

2) Flow of oil, has linkage to international law. Many countries are involved. That is about shipping lanes not countries. Conflicts my slow production of oil, they will still sell oil to buy war toys and rebuild.

3) Iran is about timing. There is no doubt that Iran is involved in the above two interests, the real question is how involved and what is Iran's impact (risk assessment). Iran makes noise and they provide funding for some of the players that pester Israel. Iran does all that because the US is doing the same, we give money to Israel and sell them arms to counter Iran's proxies. If you ask me, Israel and Iran cancel each others threat. You can get into the discussion of conflicts slipping over into non-involved counties, than than would be just another day in the region. Who cares there is always a conflict in the ME (not sure where you got your "illusion of stability" statement). A nuclear Iran is over-stated, all they want to do is be part of the nuke of the month club.

Seems to me that the US gets hammered when we start taking sides. When we take sides the US fights with its hands tied behind its back. We fight with our hands behind our backs because there is no clear national interest for our involvement. If there is no clear national interest, then why are we spending resources? To provide AID to the third world is not a clear enough reason to do what we are doing to the American economy (specifically ten years of war and USAID. Sons of whoever plus outfitting/training foreign armies ). We are putting Afghanistan on the dole with Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinians (Anyone out there counting? That is about $8-9 billion total a year just for them!! Guys the US is not growing that fast these days and most of the Federal budget is spoken for. ) I have yet to see the Text of the Afghan Pact to see if their are any metrics that require the Afghans to improve themselves with the money the US is giving them. Why are we giving them money? To be the same?

A) Syria? It is not the US's war. I even question if it is the UN's war since the UN is the US proxy.
B) Selling arms? Even the Swiss do that, it is business in any country of the world. Some times I think the US plays the countries in the ME just to stimulate our defense economy.
C)Bahrain? The US is a renter. We are there to protect shipping, end of story. We lease from Cuba and Cuba is not too good with human rights either. US is hardly neutral with Cuba, but we are not threatening war either. There is a threshold.

In summary, the US should be a facilitator in the ME not an active player. One uses diplomacy which seems to be a dieing art in the US government and the other over-uses military power (You break it, you buy it. Something that the US can not get past its bony armored skull).

If Hillary Clinton wants a war, give her and her tribe guns and let them contract to Saudi Arabia. They can freelance.

Good article I'd quibble that

Good article

I'd quibble that the " [US has three vital interests in the region] the security of the state of Israel, ensuring the free flow of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf and countering terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction"

I've yet to be convinced this is the case. I'd say it has one vital interest, ensuring the free flow etc. The first and third, when specifically applied to the middle east rather than just global (universal?) priciples, are surely secondary interests aimed at regional stability, which is of course a subordinate interest to that all important hydrocarbon.

Non-Proliferation is a fine goal, but hardly one where we security council types lead by example, and a cold-blooded assessment might argue that where countries face off with nukes greater stability reigns.