National intentions and interests are to be inferred from objective indicatorsnot declarations.
Our concerns in the Mddle East are derived from geopolitical realities, not what ourt politicians pronounce for foreign and domestic consumption.
Now the Middle East is a key, strategic area in the Anglospheric, that is, Mahonian, scheme: naval choke points and the strategic resource, oil. Let others claim the Euroasian heartland, we dominate the access to and from the heartland.
Great Britain once played the Great Game, but a the end of World War Two they had become a spend force and it became our responsibility to step up as Weltmachthaber.
To that end, we speedily recognized the Zionist entity as our hostage to empire. Thus we insured that neither the poltroon impuse nor isolationism would seduce us away from out imperial responsibilities.
It is not that Israel uses us, or not only that, but that we use Israel to anchor our Middle Eastern policy.
And it worked very well, and it continues to work, as we see by the confusion of the so-called, self-proclaimed “progressives.” They really don’t know what to say about Israel.
Viewed thusly, what are we to say about who may be called the “realist?” Surely the Mearsheimer/Walt types are the misty-eyed dreamers. They are the ones who ignore our national interests in favor of slogans, dreams, buzz-words.
