The Case for a Less Ambitious Foreign Policy

To combat terrorism and other global threats, how about a dose of Cold War-style realpolitik? The U.S. needs to set itself more attainable foreign-policy goals, says Barry Posen, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technologys strategic studies program. Eradicating terrorism entirely or working to bring about democratic change in dangerous societies — an activist approach that have drawn support from both sides of the political aisle — are grand goals that the U.S. simply doesnt have the power to achieve, says Mr. Posen. While some foreign-policy experts stress the need for the U.S. to tackle terrorism at its roots, Mr. Posen says it would be less costly and more effective to focus on limiting the largest threats. For instance, both Democratic and GOP leaders have pledged to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons at all costs. It would make more sense, says Prof. Posen, for the U.S. to consider containing a nuclear-armed Iran, using the threat of the vast American nuclear arsenal to deter Iran from using its own nuclear weapons.

This might not seem like such a radical break from current policy until you consider Mr. Posen’s specific recommendations — political suicide, according to many people the American Interest asked to respond to the article. Some more of Mr. Posen’s recommendations and the responses to them appear after the jump.