IPSEs IN THE LAST 24H
  • Theresa Fallon
    Theresa Fallon “Many people would like to see China play a constructive role, but I think now that we're in the third year of the war, this idea is wearing a bit thin.” 13 hours ago
  • Mahjoob Zweiri
    Mahjoob Zweiri “What we have witnessed in the past few hours is that they talk about an agreement on the first stage. It could be understood that Hamas wants to release itself from the pressure globally, including the United States. So, they are giving concessions on the first stage, which leads to 40 days of ceasefire and exchange of captives. I think 33 old and sick captives. And then moving on to other stages. But we are seeing that we are going back to the main conditions, which means we are still talking about the main principles [complete ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza] that Hamas talked about. As the time of some sort of agreement on the first stage came, the Israeli military and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to say actually, there is no agreement: We will go to Rafah regardless of any agreement. It reflects the divisions within the Israelis and crisis within the Israeli politics. On the other hand, Hamas has been more cautious. They do not want to show real progress made but they also do not want to say things have not changed. I think it's obvious some change has happened otherwise we would not expect [CIA chief] William Burns to be in the region.” 13 hours ago
View All IPSEs inserted in the Last 24h
NEW CONTEXTS IN THE LAST 24H
  • No New Contexts inserted in the last 24 hours
View All New Contexts inserted in the last 24h
   

21 Aug 2021

“Deciding not to continue a futile war for less-than-vital interests tells you absolutely nothing about whether a great power would fight if more serious interests were at stake. No one would conclude that withdrawing from Afghanistan after 20 years, 2,500 Americans dead, and more than $1 trillion spent implies that the United States would not fight fiercely to defend Alaska, Hawaii, or Florida. Nor should any serious person conclude the United States would not fight to prevent China from establishing hegemony in Asia or to thwart a (highly unlikely) Russian assault on NATO. The reason is simple: In each of these instances, we are talking about vital interests that could affect U.S. security in profoundly significant ways... History offers a second source of reassurance. The United States suffered an equally humiliating defeat in Vietnam, after losing more than 50,000 troops. Yet the U.S. withdrawal and subsequent fall of Saigon did not cause NATO to collapse, did not lead U.S. allies in Asia to realign with the Soviet Union or China, and did not inspire America's various Middle East client states to run for the exits.”

author
Columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University
author
Contexts (to suggest a new Context click here)
Date and Location
arrow