By the way, should I take it from your spelling of “grey” that you are a native of the British Isles? I’m not, but for some reason I often use the English spelling, especially when I’m writing quickly. On the other hand, your writing seems quite American otherwise.

Those who embrace a muddied world view might not have noticed…

I am by no means an isolationist. The US needs to be engaged commercially and diplomatically abroad and cognizant of the interests of others. Military action, overt or covert, must be restricted to use only in cases of a direct threat to the territory of the US. And then any action must be strictly monitored and controlled. It’s all too easy for the “militant” elements of any society to gain ascendancy over those seeking reasonable solutions.

The United States like all countries has competing interests vying for power. There are those both in uniform and out that tend to seek military solutions to problems (real or perceived). That does not mean that “militarists” run the U.S., even though the U.S. does sometimes choose military means to achieve its goals. It is very comforting, psychologically, to pin blame for policies we oppose on a particular group. Just to give a name (like “militarists”) to a problem allows us to more easily build a framework for our thinking. This must be guarded against, assuming we want to be sophisticated and not adolescent in our thought processes.

Another Iranian,

The United States is still the number one power in the world, with economic and political interests all over the globe. It has the world’s largest economy and, as such, has a “legitimate” interest in the Persian Gulf, home to vast energy resources. Don’t flatter yourself, the entire region from the Mediterranean coast to the Iranian plateau is of interest to Americans only because of the oil and gas there. For thousands of years this region was, culturally, the most important on earth, but for 500 or more years it’s been a backwater. Nor does it appear likely that it will emerge anytime soon from its current “Dark Age.”

The United States, in its history as a great power, has committed many bad acts. Americans in general tend to turn a blind eye to this. But they are no different than any other people in this regard. Persia was for a time the world’s “sole supewrpower,” and in Roman times was one of the two great powers in the world. It too interfered in its neighbors affairs — indeed, its expansion was only stopped by force, at Marathon and Salamis. So please don’t tell me that the U.S. doesn’t have a right to “interests” around the globe. To the extent that the U.S. has deviated from the sorry record of human civilization, it has been on the positive side. No other nation has given so much of itself, freely, to others as the U.S. has — and I am referring to things that have benefited others around the world. The United States is no angel. But I defy you to tell me what other nation, given the same power, would have behaved better.

Let me say to both of you that I personally am almost an isolationist. I don’t believe in getting involved for good or ill in other people’s internal affairs. Only a direct threat to the United States would cause me to support military action abroad. But unfortunately the U.S. IS involved around the world. I have to deal with that fact, unless I want to retreat into childish formulations that accomplish nothing. In life we have a choice between the better or the worse. The perfect does not come into play.

what do you define as “legitimate U.S interests”? and how should those interests be achieved? are wars of aggressions, direct interference in other nations’ affairs, illegally using U.N to pressure other nations (e.g Iran)…. part of the legitimate methods! to maximize those “legitimate interests”? why should America consider everything in the world as her interests? why should it be that expansionist?