One year ago, US National Security Advisor John Bolton requested that the Pentagon outline military options to maneuver a strike against Iran. This week, the White House decided to evacuate some 2,000 troops from Syria's northeast border— but not, says Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, before "[expelling] every last Iranian boot."

Bolton's stance towards Iran is one of pressure at its minimum and regime change at its height. According to him, Iran's ayatollahs are "the principal threat to international peace and security in the Middle East." By no means do I stand for the Iranian government; however, enforced change with little regard for history, culture, and the inevitability of leadership transition is not something I stand for either.

Time and time again, history has shown that US insertion into local governance is not a viable option. Iran itself serves as a case study of the unserviceability of the American method of insertion and deliberate departure. American democracy works because its purpose aligns with its inception; possessing the capability to effect change means nothing without willingness. Willingness— and, moreover, the confidence to act on it— exists in the United States because democracy was created in the same way that legislation is expected to be. We are enabled by a grassroots continuity.

When a democracy is imposed on an unwitting population, that continuity does not exist, and legitimacy is therefore lost. To educate a population regarding the existence of democratic options and viable pathways towards achieving them is one thing; to insert a 'democratic' leader that no one voted for is another. Being a proponent of the United States is not synonymous with being a proponent of democracy.

Clearly, vocally lecturing a population on the vitality of democracy is no way to stage a coup. The United States doesn't post flyers screaming "Coup Thursday from 12:00-2:00! Light refreshments will be provided!" when it looks to overthrow a government— from a security standpoint, there's reason for that. I don't mean to say that oppressive governments should be allowed to thrive; however, the US method of addressing international infraction is too often to impose a western style of governance rather than one conducive to local predilection. It is impossible for a regime change, whether self-imposed or otherwise, to survive without a plan forward.

In the face of the desynchronization that characterizes the national security team, I don't know if cementing a plan forward that is both realizable and serviceable is possible right now. Action in Syria has highlighted the internal clash between President Trump and his security advisors. The discordance first became clear with the resignation of Jim Mattis last month after Trump announced his intent to withdraw from Syria, and it continues to reveal itself as plans for doing so are made public. Though Trump has made his desire for immediate withdrawal clear, Pompeo and Bolton have stayed his ambitions by setting far-reaching contingencies, including the final defeat of the Islamic State. In yet another turn, their contingencies seem to have been overruled, as the New York times reported that the American military has begun to remove equipment from its posts in northern Syria.

The national security team may be in the position to enforce action in the Middle East; the question is whether it can do so viably. The anachronism that has been deemed by some a "revelation of frustration" is in no way conducive to policy-making, especially where the cultural sensitivity that characterizes governance policy in the Middle East is concerned. You can't conduct a coup when experiencing a "soft coup" from the inside, regardless of your position on the validity of coups in general. Rather than going Incredible Hulk on yet another Middle Eastern country, we should perhaps consider the sentience of soft power.