For more than two decades, American foreign policy has been guided by a persistent belief: that military intervention can remove tyranny and open the door to democracy. Even for me, this is a morally appealing narrative.

It is also one that recent history has repeatedly contradicted.

The wars in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan were each justified, in part, by the idea that removing authoritarian governments would stabilize regions and create the conditions for democratic governance. Instead, these conflicts produced hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, fractured political systems, and prolonged instability.

Iraq remains politically fragile and deeply scarred by sectarian conflict unleashed during the occupation. Libya collapsed into competing governments and militia rule after NATO intervention. Afghanistan endured twenty years of war only to see the Taliban return to power shortly after U.S. withdrawal. None of these outcomes resembles the democratic transformations promised at the beginning of those conflicts.

Yet the same narrative continues to appear in discussions about Iran.

Calls for aggressive military action are often framed in the language of liberation: weakening an authoritarian regime, empowering the Iranian people, or encouraging democratic change. But the historical relationship between the United States and Iran complicates that narrative.

US Meddling In Iranian Politics is Nothing New

In 1953, the United States and Britain supported a coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, challenging the dominance of the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

The CIA-backed operation, known as Operation Ajax, helped restore the Shah to power. For the next quarter century, the Shah ruled Iran with strong Western support. His government relied heavily on SAVAK, a secret police organization known for imprisoning and torturing political opponents.

This history remains central to how many Iranians view Western intervention. When American leaders speak about bringing freedom to Iran, many people in the region would be understandably wary about previous attempts by foreign powers to “fix” their political system.

None of this history excuses the authoritarianism of the current Iranian government.

But it does challenge a familiar assumption: that outside military intervention is a reliable pathway to democracy. Political systems rarely transform through external force alone. Durable democracies emerge from internal movements, institutions, civic culture, and world inclusion and partnerships developed over time.

Attempts to impose political transformation through war often produce the opposite effect, strengthening hardline factions and deepening anti-foreign sentiment.

The central question, therefore, is not whether authoritarian regimes are harmful. Many clearly are. We are learning that every day under the Trump administration in America. The question is whether bombing countries has ever reliably produced stable democratic outcomes.

The record of the past two decades suggests the answer is far from encouraging.

Until policymakers confront that reality, the temptation to repeat the same strategy will remain strong. And history suggests that repeating the same strategy while expecting different results rarely ends well.

We’ve heard the same promise before every war:
“We’re doing this to liberate people.”

Iraq. Libya. Afghanistan.

The results were not what Americans were promised.

My new Substack looks at why this narrative keeps repeating — and what history and prophecy of ancient sacred texts actually say about subjugating countries through war into democracy.