U.S. should pursue its own interests, not Israel's or Saudi Arabia's

To the editor: I agree with Andrew J. Bacevich. Who cares if President Obama's policies annoy an Israeli prime minister or a Saudi monarch? ("Go ahead, tick off the Saudis (and the Israelis, too)," op-ed, May 13)

Some people seem to forget that our president is responsible for protecting and promoting American interests not only in the Middle East but also worldwide. If doing so conflicts with another nation's agenda, then our president is under no obligation to sacrifice American interests to the interests of a foreign country. Indeed, sacrificing American interests to the interest of a foreign country would constitute a dereliction of duty.


If the nuclear talks with Iran advance American international interests, as I believe that they will, then President Obama has the obligation to work to implement the agreements. All the opponents of the negotiations have to offer is war.

Arch Miller, Arcadia


To the editor: Even if Bacevich's contention that Israel is no longer a "David surrounded by Goliaths" is correct — and it isn't — the policies he advocates would certainly put Israel back in that position.

And when he tells the U.S. that it no longer needs to turn a blind eye to Saudi support for terrorists, why isn't he holding the U.S.-Iran relationship to the same standard? Iran is no less complicit in worldwide Islamic terrorism, but we should help it become the new regional power?

At best, the United States would still be paying too high a price and getting even less in return by empowering a country that has the global spread of terrorism very high on its agenda.

Allan Kandel, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook