Protests in the Middle East Part Two: In which I waffle between being a realist and neocon

The second point is what the Obama administration should do in the face of these protests. Obviously, it’s the same balancing act that American administrations have faced for the past 60 years – whether to side with strong-man dictators who offer support for our policies, or to side with the democratic protesters who are almost invariably more hostile toward U.S. interests (with the possible exception of in Iran).


Most commentators try to break these down into two camps: the realists, who support whichever side favors our interests more, and the ideologues who think the spread of democracy is a net good. In fact, policymakers almost always must balance the competing interests, and do so pragmatically. I think the post-Cold War presidents are generally supportive of pro-democracy movements so long as the downside for U.S. interests is not too steep. We lose a corrupt but supportive dictator in Egypt, and (generally) side with the protesters. This will doubtless make U.S. policy in the region at least temporarily more difficult, but our impulse to side with the pro-democratic movement trumps the realist argument.

But in places like Afghanistan or Yemen where we are actively fighting Al Qaida, we continue to prop up strong-men, even in the face of corruption, violence, and dictatorships. Indeed, while the State Department has offered words of support for the protesters in almost every other Middle Eastern country, they have been conspicuously silent for those in Yemen, where the likelihood of revolution seems high – most likely because of Yemen’s leader’s support of American bombings of suspected terrorist targets in the country. In Yemen, Obama’s realist calculations trump his democracy-supporting impulses, for better or worse. I mean that! I don’t know if it’s for better or worse. It is unknowable.