Publius unloads on foreign policy moralists who wander about yearning for a more creditable Democratic push for democracy promotion abroad (italics mine):
[Ronald Asmus's column] dignifies the Bush administration's foreign policy by pretending that it (1) is coherent and (2) embodies moral ideals. Putting aside morality, if you look at the administration's actions (not its words), it's difficult to conclude that democracy promotion has been a consistent priority. I can't really complain about that though. The fact that the Bush administration has only selectively pushed for “democracy promotion” is its saving grace. Indeed, the administration’s greatest failures have come when it has tried to promote democracy (e.g., Iraq/Palestine) and/or has taken militant stances in the name of abstract ideals (Axis of Evil).
Publius goes on to outline the dynamics that have led many of us to turn decisively against democracy promotion as a foreign policy goal. It's not that we're against puppies and pretty things, but like Lennie Small petting his beloved mouse rabbit, our good intentions tend to leave a lot of death and troublesome outcomes in our wakes:
by affirming democracy promotion as an explicit foreign policy goal, it restricts our ability to promote liberal values and human rights in both these and other countries. Take Iran and our recent “democracy promotion” initiatives. Iran -- correctly -- believes that the American administration views its regime as illegitimate and wants it to go away. Accordingly, America's efforts to promote liberal reforms and human rights in this country are viewed as threatening, revolutionary acts that must be resisted (and that require arrests). If, by contrast, the two nations worked from a mutual recognition of each other's sovereignty and worked from this baseline, it would likely be easier to push Iran to adopt reforms (see, e.g., the 1990s). That's because reforms would be seen more as human rights issues than pretexts for regime change.
And that's the key of it. The absurdity of our game on Iran almost can't be overstated. Iran knows three things: 1) It is our government's explicit aim to effect regime change. 2) It would be impossible for us to invade them if they had a nuclear weapon. 3) They need a nuclear weapon.
Our method of responding to this has been to 1) Reaffirm our disgust with the regime. 2) Demand they give up nuclear weapons. 3) Continually threaten invasion, thus reaffirming Iran's commitment to a nuclear weapon. More oddly, we have done all this while losing a war in a neighboring country, which has overstretched our military, degraded faith in our government, destroyed our international standing, and left our populace profoundly skeptical of foreign adventurism. In other words, we're threatening all this during a moment when Iran knows we're least likely to follow through on those threats. In doing, we prove 1) our commitment to overturning their regime is enduring and 2) they need a nuclear weapon, and should probably try and make it right the fuck now.
