Hello! Been very busy finishing up my BA but remember last time when I said –

Second, the US establishment never involves itself without ulterior motives. More accurately, unless there is a substantial and legitimate interest, the United States is unlikely to invest the cost of intervention into a situation where there isn’t a meaningful incentive. If you’ve ever asked yourself, “why didn’t the US intervene in ___?” the most likely answer was that there was nothing to gain from it.

Well, I was reading A Tiny Revolution (a very nice blog I’ve followed for some time) and this quote was highlighted:

“…we don’t get very hung up on this question of precedent because we don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent. We base them on how we can best advance our interests in the region.”

Now is anyone really surprised?