Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
The United States' current approach – a two-front war against ISIS and President Bashar Assad's regime – has failed miserably.From the 1953 toppling of Mohammad Mossadegh's democratically elected government in Iran and that of Salvador Allende in Chile, to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria, regime change has long been the coin of the U.S. security realm.When the Arab Spring protests erupted, the U.S. security establishment viewed the vulnerability of the Gadhafi and Assad regimes as a similar opportunity to install new regimes in Libya and Syria.Toppling a regime is one thing; replacing it with a stable and legitimate government is another.If the U.S. wants better results, it should stop going it alone. Like the U.S., Russia has a strong interest in stability in Syria and in defeating ISIS; but it has no interest in allowing the U.S. to install its choice of regimes in Syria or elsewhere.
Crisis of Anglo-American democracy
U.S. sanctions and international law
America’s great illusions of growth
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE