Supporting religious freedom and pluralism is a foreign policy priority
The argument that religious freedom abroad serves our own security is a familiar one, and it tends to land well in Washington. Protecting pluralism at home while pressing allies and rivals to do the same sounds clean in a policy memo. The harder part is the messy middle, where a partner's record on religious minorities gets weighed against trade deals or military basing rights, and the moral case quietly loses.
I think the piece is right that pluralism is a kind of insurance policy. Societies that tolerate difference tend to be more stable, and instability anywhere has a way of finding its way back. But I'd want more on how you press partners without sounding like you're lecturing them, especially when your own record is far from perfect.
The phrase "protecting its future" does a lot of work here. It turns a values argument into a self-interest argument, which is probably the only way it survives contact with real diplomacy. I'd land on the side of making religious freedom a genuine priority, but I'd want the conversation to stay honest about how often that priority bends in practice.
