But as the events of 1979 in Iran and Nicaragua demonstrated, the stakes involved in such decisions are higher than ever before. Whether the US could have altered the outcome of either revolution remains a point of disagreement between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives say stronger US backing might have saved Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran and President Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua , pillars of US interests in the critical Middle East and Central America regions. Exponents of this view, led by former United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, say the US undermined trusted allies by putting human rights concerns ahead of strategic interests. Proponents of the Kirkpatrick doctrine cite examples like Uruguay, Argentina, and Peru, where military dictatorships have given way to democratically elected civilian governments.
Many liberals disagree.
But impressed by the peaceful transfer of power in the Philippines, the President's views appear to have moderated somewhat. Last March, Mr. Reagan hinted the US would be more aggressive in prodding friends as well as adversaries on the issue of human rights. The US has pressured Gen. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, Chile's right-wing military leader, to hold free elections in 1989, using threats to veto international loans to Chile as leverage. The dilemmas and risks involved in responding to political change are epitomized in the case of Nicaragua . US Marines were used to preserve order in Nicaragua between 1912 and 1933.