Despite the highly dramatized repudiation of neoconnery across the board the fact that no one can even imagine the Middle East becoming liberal and/or democratic has a paralyzing effect on foreign policy thinking. The success of the neocons is reflected in no one being willing
to say "he's a bastard, but he's our bastard"--probably even to each other, in more private discussions. That's because this goes way beyond the neocons--Reagan put his own twist on Carter's use of "human rights" in foreign policy, and the whole idea goes back to post-WW 2
reconstruction, which remains a source of nostalgic affirmation of American success. And it's not simple--putting in place some loyal or bought off military dictator never worked that well either. The problem of forms of stable government other than "liberal democracy" needs to
be studied unapologetically, but doing so leaves one open to too many propaganda campaigns. If these unresolved ideological issues don't lie behind Trump's hesitancy regarding finishing up the regime in Iran, I think they certainly do set the limits of the broader discussion.