The WaPo headline writer wants us to draw grandiose conclusions about GWB’s Mideast policy. To wit: every American intervention in Palestinian politics has backfired. Here’s a conclusion I’ll draw: every time a good guy leaves a power vacuum in the Middle East, Iran will fill it. I’d rewrite the headline: "Gaza shows what will happen if we withdraw precipitously from Iraq and pretend that we can exert influence without boots on the ground."
I predict an all out war with Iran in the near future, which may lead to another global war.
You say 'nativist' as if it is a bad thing. I guess if you're a necon / neoliberal / Trotskyite and worship the left-wing notion of a proposition nation, then it is. But as a real conservative, I recognize that a real nation is built upon kith and kin, blood and soil, and genophilia (instinctive attachment to family and tribe). (Aristotle defines a nation as a large tribe.) 'Nation' as the Latin nascere suggests implies link by blood. Thus, I think that 'nativism' is a good thing and one of the higher virtues towards which a true patriot can strive.
Moved by Aristotle, I prefer polis to ethnos.