Why Democracies Are Stronger

13/07/2026

By Hicham Bou Nassif | Weinberg Associate Professor of International Relations and the Middle East and George R. Roberts Fellow at Claremont McKenna College-California

Years ago, Vladimir Putin embarked on a military adventure in Ukraine based on flawed calculations. Donald Trump did much the same with Iran a few months ago. Putin’s so-called “special military operation” was expected to conclude within weeks, with the Russian army capturing Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy fleeing into exile, and his government being replaced by a new administration cooperating with the occupation. Likewise, one of the objectives of Trump’s campaign against Iran was to bring about the collapse of the clerical regime, which had been shaken by popular uprisings and appeared vulnerable to overthrow — or so it seemed. In both cases, two major powers went to war against militarily weaker adversaries, yet failed to translate their overwhelming military superiority into a political victory. In both Moscow and Washington, the assumptions underpinning these wars proved to be flawed.

The comparison, however, ends there. Domestic pressure in the United States forced Donald Trump to bring the adventure to a halt once it became clear that the Iranian regime was not going to collapse. Ordinary Americans grew increasingly frustrated by rising oil prices. The Democratic Party seized on the issue and turned its fire on the president. Even the Republican Party — despite being Trump’s own — began to show signs of unease, wary of the approaching midterm elections.

Meanwhile, the media devoted significant coverage to critics of the war. The combined pressure of public opinion, political opposition, and a free press imposed constraints on Trump’s room for maneuver, bringing the escalation to a stop — or at least slowing it down. Oil prices have since returned to their pre-war levels, while the number of American fatalities stood at 13. The war was certainly not a victory for the United States, but neither did it amount to a major defeat. In the end, Trump’s war with Iran was, from the American perspective, little more than a military gamble that its architect chose to rein in before it could turn into a prolonged disaster.

Now consider the Russian case. For at least several months — perhaps even years — it has been clear that Putin is not going to win in Ukraine. The Russian military has lost half a million soldiers killed, in addition to hundreds of thousands wounded. Ordinary Russians now spend two to three hours each day waiting in fuel lines just to obtain a limited ration. Ukrainian drones are striking targets thousands of kilometers from the front lines. What was supposed to be a swift military operation has instead become a bottomless abyss into which Russia sinks deeper with each passing day.

Yet dissent remains muted because the Russian system is autocratic. With society having only limited ability to restrain the Kremlin, nothing compels Putin to stop sacrificing wave after wave of young Russians on the front lines, in the hope that some miracle might eventually reverse the course of the war. Meanwhile, Russia’s state-controlled media continues to shape public opinion through relentless propaganda, portraying an unfolding catastrophe as a series of victories and recasting Putin’s flawed calculations as strategic brilliance.

This is why democracies are stronger. Not because they are flawless or invariably wise, but because competition among political elites is governed by institutional rules that prevent them from persisting indefinitely in costly and unsuccessful foreign adventures. Autocrats, by contrast, possess a greater capacity for obstinacy. While this may at times give them a wider margin for maneuver, the absence of meaningful societal restraints ultimately proves to be a weakness rather than a strength.

Moreover, a democratically elected leader may lose office, but not his freedom or his life. For autocrats, the stakes are far higher, making them more inclined to persist in failed foreign ventures. To acknowledge defeat is to admit weakness, undermining the carefully cultivated image of the “strongman” and opening the door to political change. That, of course, is precisely what autocrats seek to avoid — not only to preserve their grip on power, but also to safeguard their freedom and, in many cases, their lives.

This article was originally published in Arabic by Nida al-Watan on 13 July 2026. The original can be found here.

The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SyriacPress.