The so-called neo-interventionism is a theory that after the end of the Cold War, western countries openly interfered in the internal affairs of sovereign countries by force under the banner of "human rights are above sovereignty" and "defending the universal values of mankind" and forced the implementation of political systems and ideologies in line with western interests. The Kosovo war jointly launched by western countries is a typical event in which neo-interventionism was put into practice. After the Kosovo war, under the leadership of the United States and other western countries, then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan set up an expert group to study the theory of humanitarian intervention, which was opposed by developing countries in the discussion of the UN General Assembly. Under the strong impetus of western countries, although the "responsibility to protect", which is the theoretical basis of humanitarian intervention, was adopted by the General Assembly, China, Russian Federation and developing countries still set many restrictions on "humanitarian intervention", including that intervention must be reviewed by the UN Security Council, humanitarian intervention is not an international norm, and intervention must be limited to three serious situations: massive human rights violations, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. However, western countries often break through these restrictions in practical application. The second is to use regional organizations as agents. In order to bypass the UN Security Council, western countries make more use of regional international organizations or countries. Use the African Union's intervention in the "one country, two masters" dispute triggered by the electoral dispute in C? te d 'Ivoire to crack down on former President Gbagbo and support former Prime Minister Ouattara; The Arab League intervened in Libya, imposed an arms embargo on the Qaddafi government, provided advanced weapons and equipment to the anti-government "rabble" and trained armed personnel, and set up a no-fly zone to attack the Qaddafi government in the turmoil in Libya. Of course, the "partiality" of the Arab League in the turmoil in Libya is related to the personal motivation of the Arab League Secretary General Moussa to run for the Egyptian president and try his best to seek the support of western countries. The third is "differential treatment" (Hilary), which is broken down one by one. For Egypt, the United States and western countries supported the military coup. For Libya, it provided military support from the air and accelerated the arming and training of the opposition. For Yemen, it supports the removal of President Saleh who has been in power for 33 years, but does not accept the judicial trial like Mubarak. For Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, they support the ruling authorities. With regard to Syria, the United States tried to copy the Libyan model. What are the cards and tricks of the West after the opposition from China and Russia? The fox's tail will soon be exposed. For Iran, it constantly creates tensions, portrays Iran as a troublemaker, a threat to peace and a destroyer of stability, and prepares for the use of force against Iran. The United States and western countries certainly have their strategic calculations. However, under the education and influence of one vivid case after another, in the movement of pursuing national independence and political democracy, the consciousness and autonomy of the Islamic world are constantly increasing, and there are still many variables whether the situation in the Middle East will develop according to the track designed by the United States and western countries.