THREAD. In debates about U.S. policy towards autocratic foes (and almost all, if not all, foes of the US are autocracies) -- like the debate we are having now about Iran -- many assume that there are only 2 strategies available: engagement or confrontation. /1
Critics of either strategy then label proponents of either strategy in extremist terms -- appeasers and warmongers. /2
But many successful U.S. policies for dealing with autocratic foes in the past have combined elements of both engagement & confrontation, diplomacy & deterrence, cooperation & coercion. My undergraduate mentor at Stanford, Alex George, called this strategy, "coercive diplomacy."3
Useful to remember as we try to chart a delicate, complicated path forward for dealing with Iran today. /4
A subset in these debates (including me) are also interested in understanding what U.S. policies create permissive conditions for democratic change inside autocratic foes. The common assumption is that pressure is the only way to promote democracy. /5
But again, the historical record shows it's more complicated. Sometimes, pressure on autocratic regimes induces regime change. Other times, pressure has the exact opposite effect. Sometimes engagement facilitates democratization; other times not. /6
On Alex George & coercive diplomacy, read this : fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/levy/articles/…. On engagement versus pressure for promoting democracy, read my chapter in this: csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/le… On case studies of both, see amazon.com/Transitions-De… /7 END THREAD
