Stephen M. Walt

October 19, 2005

"The World Watches as America Attempts its Restoration"

Op-Ed, Financial Times

By Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program

"In the past, the US was respected because its public institutions could set ambitious goals and then achieve them...."

September 11, 2003

"Bush Needs a Mideast Exit Plan"

Op-Ed, Financial Times

By Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program

"Democracy may be a powerful trend in many parts of the world, but nationalism and the desire for self-determination are even stronger. The urge to throw off foreign domination eventually destroyed the Soviet, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, British and French empires, and it continues to inspire resistance movements around the world. Occupations and post-war reconstructions are always difficult and rarely successful, and the US should be under no illusions about the size of the hole into which it has dug itself."

February 2, 2003

"Keeping Saddam in a Box"

Op-Ed, New York Times

By John J. Mearsheimer, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security and Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program

"...Iraq has never gone to war in the face of a clear deterrent threat."

November 12, 2002

"Can Saddam Be Contained? History Says Yes"

Paper

By John J. Mearsheimer, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security and Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program

"A successful war might trigger a wave of democratic reforms in the Arab world, but a bitter anti-American backlash is more likely."

August 5, 2008

"Stephen M. Walt on the U.S., Iran, and the New Balance of Power in the Persian Gulf"

Q&A

By Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program and Kayhan Barzegar, Former Associate, Project on Managing the Atom/International Security Program, 2010–2011; Former Research Fellow, Project on Managing the Atom/international Security Program, 2007–2010

Walt: “…..by maintaining a (new) balance you don’t get conflict breaking out and you tilt in favour whichever side seems to be falling behind. At the same time, you do try to discourage conflict whenever possible. You certainly don’t try to control the region yourselves and if the balance breaks down as it did in 1991 and you have to intervene you go in, you get out as quickly as possible. But you don’t try to organize these societies. You don’t try to tell them how to live. You don’t try to tell them how their governments should be organized and you don’t try to transform them at the point of a rifle barrel. This is not disengagement, but it is also not trying to control the region or dictate its political evolution.”

“…we are not going to have a stable long-term situation in the Persian Gulf until the United States and other countries in the region—including Iran—do come to some understanding about the various issues that concern them.  Achieving that goal will require genuine diplomacy…The United States will also have to recognize that Iran’s size, potential power, large population, and its geo-strategic location inevitably make it a major player in the security environment in the Persian Gulf, and ignoring that fact is unrealistic…”

March 2010

Israel and Palestine: Two States for Two Peoples—If Not Now, When?

Report

By Boston Study Group on Middle East Peace and Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program

"The benefits of a two-state solution are incontestable, and genuine progress must be achieved quickly. Continuing the status quo—fruitless negotiations, Palestinian divisions and the steady expansion of Israeli settlements—may soon make it impossible to create two states for two peoples. The result would be the latest in a long line of tragedies: extremists on both sides would be vindicated; America's image would suffer, complicating foreign policy in a crucial region; Israel would cease to be a democratic and Jewish-majority state and be condemned as an apartheid society; and the Palestinians would continue to suffer in poverty and powerlessness."

AP Photo

March 2010

"The Challenge of Mutual Security"

Report Chapter

By Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program

"A workable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must provide adequate security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. This objective will not be easy to achieve even in the context of a two-state solution, as each state will be comparatively small and the two sides will have to coordinate border controls, access to water and key religious sites and other potentially contentious issues. The long history of conflict will magnify security concerns, and both sides are bound to worry that concessions made in the context of a final-status agreement might one day be opened up for further negotiation. Despite these challenges, a two-state solution offers the best chance of mutual security for Israelis and Palestinians alike, both now and for the foreseeable future."

March 13, 2006

"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"

Working Paper

By John J. Mearsheimer, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security and Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program

"The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy."