Anne-Marie Slaughter, of Princeton University, has an interesting essay on the possibility of the world intervening in Syria to help prevent further bloodshed. I disagree with many of her points, but the analysis is both sober and thoughtful. My disagreements stem largely from my fears that the intervention would stimulate wider involvement and greater bloodshed. Her final point, however, about the expectations of the protesters in Syria and their likely sense of betrayal is an argument I find hard to dismiss. The difficulties of humanitarian intervention are becoming more obvious in the Libyan case.
In less than a year, 16 Tibetans have self-immolated in protest over Chinese rule. The Chinese authorities have tried hard to prevent news of these protests from reaching the outside world, and it appears as if the Chinese government has decided to take a stronger line against the protests. The world governments have very little to say about these actions, but the increased violence is something which will not be contained much longer. A more effective response is necessary.
Matthew Kroenig recently published an essay in Foreign Affairs arguing for a military strike against Iran. He just published a shorter essay in the Christian Science Monitor articulating the same point of view. I bring the article to your attention because it represents a sentiment that is getting louder in policy circles. I do not believe that the argument is gaining more adherents, but it is getting more difficult to ignore. One thing is clear: the rhetorical war between Iran and the West is definitely heating up.
World Politics News 
Leave a comment