Peace in the Middle East - From a dream to reality

Thomas, I agree that the world has become increasingly interlinked and in a perfect world international cooperation and support would be beneficial in solving regional crises. Unfortunately, and I base this in making my living the last 20+ years at the worlds conflict & disaster zones (Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Balkans, etc), the interventions are more often than not "interference in someone else's garden" with a particularly biased agenda. Ever since the founding of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1944, there has been an express absence of altruism in interventions dressed up as development, nation building, promotion of democracy (more often promotion of capitalism misrepresented as democracy), etc. Far too often (in my observation in the majority of cases) these interventions are biased to the interests of "donor", unsustainable, poorly scoped, poorly supported, lacking in relevance to the recipients and conceptually flawed because they embody an often arrogant and inappropriate donor world view ("all people conform to my vision, my norms and my interests"). They are superficial, often politically cosmetic and do not pragmatically address the real issues, nor consult with the recipients who are expected to own and carry forward these initiatives. It is rare in my observation, that complex issues are realistically addressed by the international community - it is simply dumbed down to a sound-bye solution that will resonate with the mass (and frequently misinformed) constituency at home, and can be dealt with quickly before the next CNN / BBC headline, and before closing of budgets at the end of the fiscal year. In real life, on the ground, solving problems requires attitude change and pragmatic durable, sustainable solutions - and ownership by the recipients. This takes time and cooperation, two resources the modern realpolitik practitioners are not prepared to invest. Internationally it's time to prioritise minding our own business, put our own house in order first (sort out our own home countries first) before interfering in other folks' back gardens. If we are going to be involved in international solutions it is encumbent to do so with relevant and appropriate support, not simply trying to perpetuate what is often a significantly flawed self image, with at best a myopic and distorted understanding (if any understanding) of the conditions, needs and benefits to the recipient individuals and countries. If nothing else the taxpayers who pay for both humanitarian aid and military conquest are entitled to understand what they are paying for, is it appropriate and is it money sustainably used in a cost effective manner - or is it simply creating profits for multinationals and job security in the multinational, mutilateral, etc agencies.

Talking of "interference" Rob, seems no-one is immune .... did you see President Obama is likely to weigh in with a reach out to the British people in respect of Britain's Bexit poll, and Ash Carter is advising "No Trident, No special relationship with UK. If Brits are uncomfortable with the European Union partners supposedly infringing their sovereignty, it makes sense to believe US getting involved could be the "kiss of death" on the EU membership at least, ..... and actually fuel a nationalist UK negative counter reaction and Brexit. The world over you cannot blame people for national pride and objection to interference.

Ultimately sence will embark on every body involved for Good forever

interesting - this episode is not new to the Middle East and it will recover - the Middle East has suffered in the past from this khwarijite terrorism - it was culled through intellectual discourse, native education excellence. military action, and subsequent redevelopment. That was how Baghdad was transformed from a bloodbath to a centre of excellence.