What is a Non-Democratic State? What is a “Rogue State”? And is there a non-violent way to deal with such a state? TL;DR: No.

The war with Iran has turned the international system into a fascinating research laboratory for scholars of political science and international relations. To better understand the difference between Iran and other non-democratic regimes, and what the world could have done in the face of Iran, I have summarized a few points here that I believe bring some order to the matter.

Democracy is Not a Binary, It's a Spectrum Composed of Many Spectrums

Perceiving democracy as a binary concept (it exists/it doesn't) is flawed. In reality, democracy is a spectrum (a scale), and its strength is measured by a combination of dozens of indicators. While the existence of free elections is a fundamental condition, the strength of a democracy is measured by additional variables, such as the degree of political participation, the resilience of civil society, the existence of effective checks and balances, the representation of women, the realistic ability of an opposition to be elected, the local political culture, and so on. Therefore, the question is not whether a country is democratic, but what the strength of its democracy is; when key indicators are weak, and the central gauge points to a very low level, then the state can be defined as non-democratic.

Non-Democratic Regimes

The category of "non-democratic" is even broader and more diverse, and it is a mistake to treat all non-democratic regimes as a single entity. To conduct a nuanced and effective foreign policy, it is essential to distinguish between different types of authoritarian rule.

Hybrid Regimes (e.g., Russia, Turkey, Hungary)

These regimes combine a facade of democracy, such as elections, with authoritarian practices. The political competition within them is unfair, as the government weakens the opposition and restricts the media and the independence of the judiciary. They operate in the "gray zone" between democracy and autocracy.

Authoritarian Regimes (e.g., Saudi Arabia, China, Egypt)

These regimes are characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of a single leader or a small group, while significantly limiting political pluralism. Their main goal is to preserve stability and power, and they may allow a degree of freedom in non-political areas as long as it does not threaten their grip on power.

Totalitarian Regimes (e.g., North Korea, Turkmenistan, Syria)

This is the most extreme form of a non-democratic regime, which seeks absolute control over all aspects of life through an all-encompassing ideology, a single party, and state terror. The regime holds a monopoly over the media, the economy, and the armed forces, demanding absolute loyalty from its citizens.

Theocratic Regimes (e.g., Iran, Afghanistan)

In this regime, the source of political authority is seen as divine, and the state is ruled by religious leaders who interpret religious law. The legal and political systems are subject to religious law, and there is an overlap between religious and state institutions, with the legitimacy of the government deriving from a divine mandate rather than the will of the people.

The "Rogue State"

The term "Rogue State" describes nations perceived as a global threat due to their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, support for terrorism, internal oppression, and opposition to international norms, such as Iran and North Korea. However, the term is considered a political tool rather than a scientific, objective analysis, as it is applied selectively. Furthermore, the accompanying policy of isolation can, as will be shown, become a self-fulfilling prophecy: it pushes isolated regimes to view nuclear weapons as an insurance policy for their survival and encourages them to cooperate with each other. Thus, the policy of isolation can paradoxically intensify the threat it is designed to contain.

The Islamic Republic of Iran

Iran is effectively ruled by a Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards. Despite the existence of controlled elected institutions, the regime brutally suppresses internal protests and faces growing popular frustration. Its foreign policy, driven by anti-Western ideology and a quest for regional hegemony, relies on a network of terrorist organizations (the "Axis of Resistance") and the pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, which define it as a "rogue state."

The nuclear deal (JCPOA) of 2015 is a key case study for the dilemma of isolation versus engagement. Supporters argued that the agreement effectively curbed the nuclear program through strict monitoring in exchange for sanctions relief. Conversely, opponents saw it as a dangerous capitulation that only temporarily froze the problem, while the economic relief funded the regime's regional aggression. The debate highlights the central question: can controlled engagement achieve concessions, or does it only strengthen rogue regimes?

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea

North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship under the control of the Kim dynasty, which channels all its resources toward its survival and military through brutal repression and the complete isolation of its population. Its foreign policy is entirely aimed at regime survival, with nuclear weapons seen as its ultimate insurance policy against external intervention. The regime uses military provocations to deter and extort aid, while its centralized and closed economy provides it with high immunity to sanctions, rendering them an ineffective tool.

The Axis of the Isolated

The cooperation between Iran and North Korea demonstrates how international isolation can achieve the opposite of its intended result. Isolation has pushed the two countries, which share a common enemy and are under sanctions, to cooperate out of a mutual interest in survival. In this symbiotic relationship, North Korea provides advanced missile technology in exchange for funding and test data from Iran. Thus, the policy of isolation has created an "axis of the isolated" that accelerates weapons proliferation instead of stopping it.

The Policy Dilemma - Isolation vs. Engagement

What is the most effective strategy for democratic states in dealing with "Rogue Regimes"?

The Strategy of Absolute Isolation

The strategy of isolation aims to apply maximum pressure on a rogue regime to change its behavior or, in extreme cases, bring about its collapse. The main tools in this strategy include comprehensive economic sanctions, diplomatic boycotts, cultural and academic isolation, and military deterrence. The logic is that imposing a heavy economic and political price will harm the regime's ability to fund its malign activities, create internal pressure, and ultimately force it to choose between survival and continuing its hostile policies.

The Failure of Sanctions on Iran and North Korea

An analysis of the sanctions against Iran and North Korea reveals the limitations of the isolation strategy. Although some of the harshest sanctions regimes in history caused these countries enormous economic damage, they failed in their ultimate goal: halting their nuclear and missile programs. North Korea, thanks to its closed economy and total repression, proved resilient and continued to develop its capabilities, as did Iran. Moreover, the sanctions did not lead to popular uprisings and sometimes even strengthened the regimes by uniting the population around a narrative of an "external enemy."

The Strategy of Critical Engagement

The strategy of engagement is not capitulation, but a calculated use of diplomatic and economic tools to influence a target state's behavior. This approach combines pressure and deterrence ("sticks") with incentives ("carrots"), such as targeted sanctions relief, to create common interests and achieve specific changes. Its goal is to give the regime "something to lose," thereby increasing the cost of defiance and encouraging pragmatic elements within it.

Case Study - The JCPOA and the Agreed Framework

The nuclear agreement with Iran (JCPOA, 2015) and the Agreed Framework with North Korea (1994) are prominent examples of implementing the engagement strategy. These agreements were not based on trust, but on the principle of "Trust but Verify," and focused on a narrow goal: moving the countries away from the nuclear threshold for a defined period through limitations and strict monitoring, in exchange for sanctions relief. Proponents argue that despite their flaws, these agreements were more effective at curbing the nuclear programs than the preceding years of isolation and provided the world with valuable "breakout time" in case of a violation.

The Challenges of Engagement

The strategy of engagement is fraught with challenges: it is difficult to implement politically at home, where it is often seen as "rewarding bad behavior," and it requires patience and an international consensus that is hard to maintain. There is always the risk that the target state will exploit the relief to strengthen itself in other areas (like terrorism) or violate its commitments. Its success depends on mutual willingness to compromise and a reliable monitoring and enforcement mechanism, conditions that are not always met, as happened in the Iranian case.

Conclusion: Force as a Necessary Tool

When it comes to Rogue States, the two main policy strategies – isolation and engagement – have been a resounding failure and are doomed to continue failing. The proof is before our eyes: North Korea is now a resilient nuclear power, while Iran, despite agreements and sanctions, has come within reach of a bomb after developing all the necessary components. Past experience teaches that there is only one way to prevent a rogue state from imposing its terror: the systematic and complete elimination of its capabilities to use violence, terror, and threats. A rogue state must be rendered devoid of significant military capabilities, including the denial of any nuclear potential, even for "peaceful purposes." This can only be achieved through the application of external military force and continuous containment. A policy of engagement and cooperation can only be considered after the rogue state has been completely disarmed and no longer poses a threat. Any other path is, in fact, negligence by the international community, allowing these states to continue developing deterrent capabilities until they become completely immune, as tragically happened with North Korea, which can now do as it pleases.

Map: Cacahuate, amendments by Globe-trotter and Joelf, CC BY-SA 4.0 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Middle_East.png