Regime change in Iran

5 Comments

• 
  Jack January 6, 2010 at 11:41 am

  Hamid and Walt may be talking past each other. I think Walt’s point is that some force in Iran – Islamist or not – seeks to challenge US influence at least in the Middle East. I take Hamid’s point to be that democracies giving political expression to Islam do not necessarily result in anti-US foreign policies.

  I don’t know a lot about the shades of realism or where Stephen Walt lies in that ideological space, but I do remember something from undergrad about realists. Don’t they believe that states are fundamentally self-aggrandizing in pursuit of national interests and the means to attain them? If Walt subscribes to that assumption, wouldn’t that explain his gloomy outlook for a democratic Iran?
• 
  Jack January 6, 2010 at 12:00 pm

  More clearly about Walt, a better governed Iran will realize its inherent inclination to challenge US influence. He doesn’t say a lot about the likely decision-makers or the content of their preferences under said scenario.
• 
  Barak January 6, 2010 at 3:28 pm

  Agree. He makes an assumption that a democratic Iran would be a greater threat to the US than the current regime and works backwards from that assumption. It would be nice f he could prove it, rather than simply asserting it.
• 
  Jack January 7, 2010 at 2:34 pm

  Unfortunately the empirical record contradicts the point. Meaningfully competitive democratic states have broadly supported US interests, not the reverse.
• 
  Barak January 7, 2010 at 3:25 pm

  Good point. Perhaps that is why he didn’t cite any evidence.