The United States has a long history of supporting autocracy/dictatorship in the Middle East. The belief has been that a strong dictator that is friendly to the United States is more beneficial to regional stability and US national security interests than the uncertainty, instability, and chaos that might stem from a democratically elected government. Other arguments hold that democracy in the region simply cannot work.
Most arguments concerning democracy vs. other forms of governance always seem to focus on the moral aspects of the discussion. I would instead like to focus on the real and tangible impact of the type of government on the stability of the Middle East and on US national security.
My argument is that democracy can indeed work in the region and that it will have a direct and positive impact on regional stability and US national security interests.
I believe that a Democratic government enacted upon a foreign nation would not work for the positive. For years other countries have worked and run efficiently without democracy, so why can't they remain that way? China, Japan, and many other nations are defined as a republic, but some like China are governed by communist parties. But those nations run smoothly and some say have been more progressive than the United States. They have brought in more revenue, don't have attacks on their nations, and are steadily growing from an economic standpoint. Also, the people are happy, and not spending billions on war. My point being, those nations are fine without a Democratic influence, as long as the leaders are not corrupt.