Equifinality of Promoting Forced Regime Much contemporary commentary on U.S. policy toward Syria boils down to a debate for or against regime change that many observers characterize as a standard US goal linked to belief in American politics. exceptionalism. President Obama sought to disavow this view during his speech in Cairo in 2009 entitled “A New Beginning.” His declaration that “no system of government can or should be imposed on one nation by another” was an emphatic rejection of what John M. Owen, IV describes as a “fairly common practice of statesmanship.” In this article I will summarize Owen's main ideas from The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510-2010, analyze his research design, evaluate the coherence of his central argument, and evaluate his contribution to international politics. Relationship Scholarship. Although Owen's work sheds light on the phenomenon of promoting forced regimes, his explanation is only one of several plausible causes. Book Summary The Clash of Ideas in World Politics is an ambitious attempt to reveal the conditions that lead governments to use military force to advance specific regimes. types in other countries. Owen's review of history from 1510 to 2010 reveals 209 episodes of states using force to support or change a specific type of regime (promotion of a forced regime ex ante) or to change a state's regime at the end of operations military (promotion of a forced regime ex post). These 209 promotions do not include the forcible imposition of a regime on conquered or occupied territory that has been absorbed by the conquering state; Owen includes only episodes in which conquered states retained at least quasi-independence. Owen also… half of the paper… if he rationally equates regime type with intention, then Walt's defensive realism can explain the phenomenon of forced regime promotion. States promote specific types of regimes to reduce threats. Accepting Owen's constructivist argument requires more detailed process tracing to show causal links between TIN and forced regime promotion. Owen has provided an in-depth description of rulers' decisions to forcibly promote types of regimes in other countries, and this description invites further research into the possible causes of this phenomenon. Others will need to build on his work to better evaluate the real impact of TINs on government decisions. The influence and ideological polarization of TINs certainly influenced the environment in which rulers and governments made their decisions. However, there remain other plausible explanations for states' actions that cannot be discounted.