Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The National Interest 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone (202) 467-4884 Fax (202) 887-5222 editor@nationalinterest.org
The contents of The National Interest are copyrighted. 2014 The National Interest, Inc.
All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution of this material is permitted only
with the express written consent of The National Interest.
America Unhinged
By John J. Mearsheimer
S
ince early 2011, political develop- sure the right person is in charge in Cairo
ments in Egypt and Syria have re- and Damascus.
peatedly captured the attention of Packaged together, such beliefs create a
the American foreign-policy elite. The powerful mandate for continuous American
Obama administration has tried to guide involvement in the politics of these two
the turbulent political situation in post- troubled countries.
Mubarak Egypt and become increasingly Anyone paying even cursory attention to
engaged in Syrias bloody civil war. The U.S. foreign policy in recent decades will
United States is already helping arm some recognize that Washingtons response to
of the forces fighting against the Assad re- Egypt and Syria is part of a much bigger
gime, and President Obama came close to story. The story is this: Americas national-
attacking Syria following its use of chemi- security elites act on the assumption that
cal weapons in August 2013. Washington every nook and cranny of the globe is of
is now directly involved in the effort to great strategic significance and that there
locate and destroy Syrias chemical-weapons are threats to U.S. interests everywhere. Not
stockpiles. surprisingly, they live in a constant state
These responses reflect three widespread of fear. This fearful outlook is reflected in
beliefs about Egypt and Syria. The first the comments of the chairman of the Joint
is that the two states are of great strategic Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey,
importance to the United States. There before Congress in February 2012: I cant
is a deep-seated fear that if the Obama impress upon you that in my personal
administration does not fix the problems military judgment, formed over thirty-eight
plaguing those countries, serious damage years, we are living in the most dangerous
will be done to vital American interests. time in my lifetime, right now. In February
The second one is that there are compelling 2013, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
moral reasons for U.S. involvement in stated that Americans live in very complex
Syria, mainly because of large-scale civilian and dangerous times, and the following
deaths. And the third is that the United month Senator James Inhofe said, I dont
States possesses the capability to affect remember a time in my life where the world
Egyptian and Syrian politics in significant has been more dangerous and the threats
and positive ways, in large part by making more diverse.
These are not anomalous views. A 2009
John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison survey done by the Pew Research Center
Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science for the People and the Press found that
at the University of Chicago. He is on the Advisory 69 percent of the Council on Foreign
Council of The National Interest. Relations members believed the world
twenty-five years than at any other time in weapon. 1 Political turmoil in a nuclear-
its history. General Dempseys assertion that armed state could in theory allow terrorists
the present marks the most dangerous era in to grab a loose nuclear weapon, but the
his lifetime is completely wrong. The world United States already has detailed plans to
was far more perilous during the Cold War, deal with that highly unlikely contingency.
which witnessed the various Berlin crises, Terrorists might also try toacquire fissile
the Cuban missile crisis and the 1973 Yom material and build their own bomb. But
Kippur War. And it is hard to fathom how that scenario is extremely unlikely as well:
Senator Inhofe, who was born one year there are significant obstacles to getting
after Hitler came to power, could think enough material and even bigger obstacles
todays world is more dangerous than the to building a bomb and then delivering
first decade of his life. it. More generally, virtually every country
Am I overlooking the obvious threat has a profound interest in making sure no
that strikes fear into the hearts of so many terrorist group acquires a nuclear weapon,
Americans, which is terrorism? Not at all. because they cannot be sure they will not
Sure, the United States has a terrorism be the target of a nuclear attack, either
problem. But it is a minor threat. There is by the terrorists or another country the
no question we fell victim to a spectacular terrorists strike. Nuclear terrorism, in short,
attack on September 11, but it did not is not a serious threat. And to the extent
cripple the United States in any meaningful that we should worry about it, the main
way and another attack of that magnitude remedy is to encourage and help other
is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. states to place nuclear materials in highly
Indeed, there has not been a single instance secure custody.
over the past twelve years of a terrorist
organization exploding a primitive bomb
on American soil, much less striking a
major blow. Terrorismmost of it arising
C ontrary to what isolationists think,
there are three regions of the world
Europe, Northeast Asia and the Persian
from domestic groupswas a much bigger Gulfthat are indeed of vital strategic im-
problem in the United States during the portance to the United States. Of course,
1970s than it has been since the Twin Europe and Northeast Asia are important
Towers were toppled. because the worlds other great powers are
What about the possibility that a terrorist located in those regions, and they are the
group might obtain a nuclear weapon? Such only states that might acquire the capability
an occurrence would be a game changer, to threaten the United States in a serious
but the chances of that happening are way.
virtually nil. No nuclear-armed state is
going to supply terrorists with a nuclear 1 Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, Why States
weapon because it would have no control Wont Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists,
over how the recipients might use that International Security 38, no. 1 (2013).
foreseeable future. And the longer the civil countries. In other words, further American
war lasts, the stronger the jihadists will intervention would probably help spread
become within the opposition forces. the fire, not contain it.
If nothing else, one might argue that In theory, the United States could solve
removing Assad from power would deliver this contagion problem by invading and
a devastating blow to Hezbollah, which is occupying Syria, much the way it did in
supported by Syria as well as Iran. The first Iraq between 2003 and 2011. Thankfully,
problem with this claim is that the United there is zero chance that will happen.
States is not a mortal enemy of Hezbollah Thus, the best strategy for the Obama
and not in its crosshairs. Washington administration is to pursue a diplomatic
should not give it any incentive to target the solution.
United States. Furthermore, even if the flow But even if diplomacy fails and the war
of Iranian and Syrian arms to Hezbollah spreads beyond Syrias borders, it would
were cut off, it would remain a powerful not undermine American security in any
force in Lebanon and the broader region, meaningful way, as it would not lead to a
as it has deep roots and enjoys substantial single country dominating the Gulf and its
support among important segments of oil. Besides, every oil-producing country
Lebanese society. Moreover, the flow of has powerful incentives to sell its oil and
arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah generate revenue, whether it is embroiled in
would eventually start up again, because no a conflict or not.
matter who rules in Damascus, it is in their Lastly, there is the argument that
interest to support Hezbollah. That militant American credibility is on the line in Syria
organization directly threatens Israels and thus the United States must remain
northern border, which provides Syria deeply involved in that countrys politics.
with the only leverage it has for getting the To be sure, credibility would not even
Golan Heights back from Israel. be an issue if President Obama had not
What about the claim that the United foolishly drawn a red line over Syrian use
States should intervene in Syrias civil war of chemical weapons. One might counter
to prevent it from becoming a regional that the president had no choice but to rule
conflict? Its worth noting that the Obama the use of chemical weapons out of bounds,
administration helped precipitate this because they are especially heinous weapons
problem by attempting to remove Assad and there is a powerful norm against using
and failing, which helped exacerbate them.
the ongoing civil war. Furthermore, These counterarguments are not
if America gets more involved in the compelling. Despite all the hyperbole
conflict, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia are surrounding chemical weapons, they are
likely to increase their support for Assad, not weapons of mass destruction. They are
which would increase the prospect that certainly not in the same category as nuclear
the war would spill over into neighboring weapons. Israel, after all, has been willing
hostility toward the United States. But that country, which is what allows it to behave
fervor wears off once those leaders confront foolishly without jeopardizing its security.
the realities of exercising power inside and The unipolar moment, coupled with
outside of their countries borders. Plus, Americas geographical location and nuclear
the United States is enormously powerful, arsenal, creates a permissive environment
and almost always has substantial leverage for irresponsible behavior, which its leaders
in its dealings with other countries. Ceteris have been quick to exploit. The one notable
paribus, it is best for a foreign leader to get strategic cost of these interventionist
along with Uncle Sam; purposely picking policies is the terrorism problem. But that
a fight rarely makes sense. None of this is threat is not of great significance, which is
to deny that Americas interests sometimes why the United States is able to pursue the
clash with those of other countries. But that same policies that help cause this problem
does not mean the leadership on either side in the first place.
is responsible for the rivalry in those cases. Unlike the strategic costs, the economic
In sum, the best approach for the United costs of global dominance have been
States is not to intervene in other countries enormous. For starters, the United
to help influence what kind of political States has had to maintain a huge and
system they have or who governs them. sophisticated military with bases all over
The smart strategy is to let other peoples the world so that it can intervene anywhere
decide their own political fate, and then on the planet. Not surprisingly, its defense
use carrots and sticks to foster relations that budget dwarfs that of any other country; in
serve Americas interests. 2012, for example, the United States spent
more on defense ($682 billion) than the
whistle-blowers, not Obama, who is deeply comment that the governments authority
committed to government secrecy. to collect information on law-abiding
American citizens is essentially limitless.
military for attacking Syria. Hopefully, States dominates the Western Hemisphere.
the senior leadership and the rank and It should also use force when core strategic
file finally recognize they have been asked interests are threatened. But Washington
to fight losing wars that matter little for should stop intervening in the politics of
the security of the United States and that countries like Egypt and Syria and more
most of their fellow citizens consider not generally abandon its interventionist
worth fighting. There are sound reasons strategy of global domination, which has led
to limit how much criticism military to unending trouble. We might then begin
commanders can direct at civilian leaders to restore the tarnished liberal-democratic
and their policies. At the present moment, principles that once made America truly
however, the generals should push their exceptional and widely admired. n