&gt; But would being a passive enemy simply allow them to run roughshod all over the middle east, consolidate power, disrupt energy resources, cause mass exuduses, unrest, power imbalances, civil factional wars, etc. which one might consider a sizable loss to the west?<p>Collectively, the west is what did the destabilizing of the region to begin with. That is what caused them to gain the power that they have now. We created a huge power vacuum because collectively we&#x27;re not prepared to pay the price for maintaining the structural integrity of the region. Starting this is easy, maintaining an orderly society in a &#x27;western&#x27; way that does not want to be an orderly society is a lost cause.<p>So now we have an entirely new situation. We can choose to escalate but this will - in due course - again require that we commit ourselves to putting large numbers of people in harms way for an extended period, probably on the level that will make the Iraq wars look like Sunday outings on the beach.<p>&gt; I guess it depends what you mean by passive.<p>Passive to me means <i>defense</i>, so defend our own turf, let the &#x27;locals&#x27; work things out as much as possible without interference other than to accept refugees from the region and to actively aid refugees in leaving these regimes behind.<p>Leave them their oil wells and weapons but don&#x27;t buy their oil, don&#x27;t sell them more weapons (and serious sanctions against those that violate embargoes). Close the borders <i>outbound</i>. And deal with the rotten apples that make it in with the refugees as the criminals that they are.<p>That&#x27;s not an easy path, it would lead to a ton of trouble but I believe strongly that it would lead to less trouble than the alternatives.