Access ideas for lessons and assignments using these questions by clicking here.

1. In "Theorizing Islam," Richard Bulliet argues that, in spite of the lessons of the Iran hostage crisis, the United States did not take seriously the rise of radical Islam in constructing a vision and policies for south and southwest Asia in the post-Cold War era.
   1. According to Bulliet, how did the U.S. conceptualize its "national interest" in its attempt to maintain order in south and western Asia (the Middle East)? What was problematic about this conceptualization of U.S. interests?

   2. How have the ideas of modernity and modernization informed U.S. policymakers' interpretation of society, politics, and national development in this geographic area?

   3. According to Bulliet, what issues related to Islam must U.S. policymakers take into account if they are to develop constructive policies toward the region in the post September 11th era? d) Do you disagree with any of Bulliet's assumptions and arguments? If so, what alternative perspective(s) would you offer?

2. Steve Smith wrote "The End of the Unipolar Moment" soon after September 11. Discuss Smith's central arguments and predictions in light of the events that have evolved since he wrote this essay. Were Smith's assessments accurate? Would you agree with Smith's assertion that Benjamin Barber's portrayal of the future world order is accurate? Or, do you consider that Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukyama or others make a more convincing argument for the future world order? Explain.

3. While Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira comments on the future of international politics more generally and William Wallace speaks only to relations between Europe and the United States, they both offer predictions for the future world order. Based on what Bresser-Pereira says more generally about international relations, imagine how he would respond to Wallace's outlook on a future where the United States remains the dominant power in the world. Would he agree or disagree with Wallace? What points would he use to make his argument? In turn, how would Wallace respond to Bresser-Pereira?

4. In the four essays, the phrase "world order" is used in at least three inter-related ways -
   • to signify an established (but changeable) system or order of relationships between states that is essential to inter-national stability;

   • to signify hierarchical relationships among states, such as the concepts of bi-polar or uni-polar world order. Powerful states at the apex of the global hierarchy are central to the maintenance of both the established world order and of order (i.e. stability) in the world;

   • to signify a lack of serious conflict that would threaten the stability of world order.

   1. Which of these uses of "world order" do you think most accurately reflects the reality of U.S. foreign policy and engagement in the world in the past decade?

   2. How do you think the definition and realization of "world order" might change in the aftermath of September 11th?

5. Based on these and your other readings, as well as your own observations:
   1. during the post-Cold War era (1990-2001), how did the U.S. policy elite - members of the executive and legislative branches and their advisors - envision the U.S. role (i) in the world, (ii) in maintaining world stability, and (iii) in establishing a new world order?

   2. how would you characterize U.S. engagement in the world in the 1990s and what relationship, if any, do you see between the nature of that engagement and the tragic events of September 11th? Explain.

   3. how are the events of September 11th likely to change how the U.S. will define its role in the world and seek to maintain a new world order?