Let's talk about spheres of influence and international affairs....

Interesting conclusions based on weak assumptions. To begin with, his assessment of spheres of influence prior to the Trump Administration are highly questionable. Our alliance with the Kurds didn't give us influence in Syria. It aggravated Syria and drove that government to seek alliance with Russia. Does that mean that Syria is or was a sphere of influence for Russia or merely that Syria would tolerate Russian help to annoy the Americans for their support of the Kurds? And, was President Trump responding to the situation in Syria by withdrawing from the alliance with the Kurds, or was he responding to the Turks, a NATO ally, who are at war with certain Kurdish factions? Is or was or will Iraq be withing the sphere of influence of America? Or is Iraq using America in its perpetujal war with Iran? Will Iraq be persuaded to expel America from its nation and join with Russia, especially when Iran becomes a Russian client? That hardly seems likely. Afghanistan? As this person admits, there is no actual government there to ally with. Will Afghanistan ally with Russia? Given the brutality of the Soviet dominion over Afghanistan, that idea is laughable. Afghanistan will remain as it has been throughout the ages, the Graveyard of Empires. It is ungovernable and shoujld be allowed to remain in the Stone Age, returning only occasionally to weed out terrorists who find refuge there. If you want to understand the region, I recommend three books, very highly. Unfortunately, all three are dated and it would be helpful if equally qualified authors revisited the region to bring them up to date. First is The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia). He lived among the natives of the region and actually went native for a time, speaking the language, eating at their tables, and leading them in battle (successfully). The second is The Devil We Know: Dealing With The New Iranian Superpower by Robert Baer. "Over the past thirty years [prior to the book's publication in 2008], while the United States has turned either a blind or dismissive eye, Iran has emerged as a nation every bit as capable of altering America’s destiny as traditional superpowers Russia and China. Indeed, one of this book’s central arguments is that, in some ways, Iran’s grip on America’s future is even tighter." Lastly is Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History
by George Crile, Christopher Lane, et al. [Don't rely on the movie version] It's an interesting look into the way Washington worked (before the deep state finally took control) as well as the mindset of the warlords who actually control Afghanistan. Based on these three books as well as a close study of current events that is the luxury of one who is retired and avoids popular news media, I am of the opinion that the only correct thing we have done in recent years is to free ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil and should help other civilized nations achieve the same goal. (Civilized defined as nations ruled by civilians/citizens) Only then can we isolate the peoples of the Middle East and tempt them into joining the community of nations by fundamentally changing themselves (becoming civilized)

I don't see a future in W Wing for him, but he has made some points that are at least debatable geographically. It's almost ludicrous to argue the favor of economic sanctions and trade policy, when we are so upside down internally. He didn't go there, likely for that obvious reason. That only leaves military options, but saving WMD how can we expect to reverse this trend of influence west to east? Diplomacy is a longer term option for systems that are mostly tenable. A million man army spread through the region? Whoops, things just went south in Pacific and Europe, so lets draft another half-million overnight. Financial leverage doesn't work with Nations holding our debt from the start, so there is that. Comes down to a choice few accumulating gross wealth and ensuring they have a personal bunker, the rest of us be damned. Whoever has the most toys at the end wins? It's a lose/lose strategy, same as economy, unless major changes are made. Not exclusively politics, but a change of mindset for us as a Nation.

He does raise some interesting points