Thank you, neoisolationists and peaceniks. It looks like you have accomplished the seemingly impossible: get Obama to tacitly support a brutal dictator against both a popular uprising and US interests. A lot of realist commentators, most notably, Stephen Walt at Harvard, claim that the United States has no “vital interest” at stake in Syria. This is true: no matter how the conflict turns out, the US’ power position will remain essentially unchanged. So what are these ‘US interests’ that are supposed to guide a realist policy for the unipole? In what follows, we examine this question in light of centered geopolitical realism and its implications for Syria.
US 'Interests' and Syria
US 'Interests' and Syria
US 'Interests' and Syria
Thank you, neoisolationists and peaceniks. It looks like you have accomplished the seemingly impossible: get Obama to tacitly support a brutal dictator against both a popular uprising and US interests. A lot of realist commentators, most notably, Stephen Walt at Harvard, claim that the United States has no “vital interest” at stake in Syria. This is true: no matter how the conflict turns out, the US’ power position will remain essentially unchanged. So what are these ‘US interests’ that are supposed to guide a realist policy for the unipole? In what follows, we examine this question in light of centered geopolitical realism and its implications for Syria.