Calls for U.S. military intervention to bring democracy to Iran rest on a dangerous illusion: that democracy is something foreign powers can install from the outside. History suggests the opposite. When democracy is imposed through force, it rarely produces freedom—and often strengthens authoritarianism.

Democracy is not just a set of institutions like elections or constitutions. At its core, it is about collective self-rule. A people is free only when it participates in shaping the laws and institutions that govern it. When political systems are imposed by foreign powers, even in the name of liberation, that basic principle is violated.

This legitimacy problem has haunted every major attempt at externally imposed democratization. In Iraq and Afghanistan, foreign intervention dismantled existing regimes and introduced democratic institutions on paper. Elections were held. Constitutions were written. Yet these institutions lacked deep social roots. Without broad legitimacy, state capacity, or national cohesion, democracy became a procedural exercise detached from everyday political life. The result was not stability, but fragmentation, violence, and enduring dependence on foreign power.

Iran’s own history offers a cautionary lesson. Under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, rapid Western-backed modernization was imposed from above while political opposition was suppressed. These reforms weakened traditional social structures without creating democratic legitimacy. The outcome was not liberal democracy, but revolution. Religious movements filled the political vacuum left by the repression of secular and leftist forces. The 1979 revolution was less a rejection of modernity than a response to imposed change without consent.

Supporters of military intervention often assume that removing an authoritarian regime automatically opens the door to democracy. In reality, regime change achieved through external force tends to fracture domestic opposition movements, delegitimize dissent by tying it to foreign aggression, and strengthen nationalist and authoritarian narratives. Rather than empowering society, intervention allows regimes to portray themselves as defenders of national sovereignty.

Material conditions matter as well. Democracy historically developed alongside economic autonomy, social organization, and class compromise. Introducing democratic institutions without these foundations does not accelerate democracy—it destabilizes it. In many cases, externally supported “democratic” regimes end up serving elite interests while remaining economically and politically constrained.

This is why military intervention in Iran would almost certainly backfire. It would undermine indigenous movements for political change, intensify repression, and strengthen the very forces it claims to oppose. Democracy cannot be delivered by missiles or occupation armies. It must be built through internal struggle, social organization, and political legitimacy.

If the goal is genuine democratization, the lesson of history is clear: stop trying to impose it. Democracy is not an export. It is a process—one that can only succeed when it belongs to the people themselves.