oreign relations strategies that self interest and are chosen by a country to safeguard their national interest so that they can achieve goals within their international relations. The strategies employed here are in relation to other countries and as such interact with those countries (Hinnebusch, 2002). This paper therefore seeks to analyze the realist approach to foreign policy in Syria; what do/would Hans Morgenthau and John Mearsheimer says about that; how they would interpret it; and why. Further the paper will give a brief conclusion on the subject issue – foreign policy.
In relation to the US foreign policy in Syria, there in deed exist two contrasting sides in the debate. They are the realists and the ‘declinists’. The realists see the policy as one that favours the implementers understanding their interest while the declinists think otherwise. Obama’s administration could be engaging in a very guarded but also genuine diplomacy with this country Syria. Is it an issue of great powers having a sphere influence? The use of fight to end a fight or rather fighting a war with the intention of preventing or ending one is what the other side sees. These two opposing sides seeks argue their sides based on their observations and analysis of the foreign policy in Syria. The foreign policy seams a well thought idea and the resultant outcomes can be assessed from the point of view of the enforcers.
However, an analysis of the realist approach to foreign policy in Syria has a lot to reveal. The realist theory supports the idea that foreign policy as an amoral field needs an approach that has a pragmatic power considerations in relation to national interests and not a pursuit to goals that are a nations ideals (Mearsheimer, 2014). In the Middle East, Syria as a country has been a critical power in maintaining a balance. The realist theory, believes that states should act in accordance to their vital needs and not institutions or international norms they