In response to the current tumult in the Middle East, there has been widespread speculation amongst pundits and politicos that the Obama administration will soon announce a new foreign policy doctrine outlining the United States’ philosophy in regards to promoting democracy abroad.

Doctrines are the Oscars of foreign policy; they’re exciting and attention-grabbing, ambitious in their attempt to showcase serious intellectualism and creative thinking and—when done correctly—make great fodder for the history books. And since we, as the next generation of citizens and policymakers, will be tasked with managing the resulting spin from this potential new doctrine, we should show a bit more interest and enthusiasm in the topic than James Franco did Sunday night (Slight digression: Seriously? Who gets bored hosting the Oscars?).

In order for a new doctrine to be successful, it must effectively balance two crucial and sometimes contradictory priorities—the practical need for Middle Eastern allies in fighting terrorism and countering the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, and the moral need to support those who seek the same political rights that we cherish at home. The first without the second would be hypocritical; the second without the first would be too dangerously idealistic.

The doctrine President Obama should establish, therefore, is one of locally-initiated engagement. As we have seen in Iraq, forcibly removing authoritarian regimes entails a cost in lives and dollars that we cannot afford. Absent regime change, most measures we could take to preemptively spark democratic reform would damage our relationships with allies in a region that is vital to U.S. interests. Where local pro-democracy movements exist, however, the U.S. should exercise the fullest range of its moral authority to support reformers. This could include statements and speeches that express solidarity with the dissenters, private negotiations with authoritarian leaders, technological assistance, economic sanctions when dictators use force against their own people and, where feasible and useful, financial support for organized pro-democracy groups. Once dictatorial regimes are toppled, the U.S. should offer assistance in writing any necessary constitutions or constitutional amendments and establishing and monitoring free and fair elections.

One of the greatest challenges of responding to the current wave of protests has been that distancing ourselves from authoritarian allies could discourage other leaders around the region from continuing to cooperate with U.S. aims, out of fear that our support for their governments will evaporate just as quickly. The advantages of a doctrine like this are that it would create a clear expectation of when U.S. allegiances would shift, as well as incentives for authoritarian leaders to initiate reforms before protests erupt.

At the same time, this approach would ensure that America does not land on the wrong side of revolutionary history. Not only is this a moral concern, but we also risk losing significant influence in the region if we come to be viewed as the back brace of dictators. One of the most disturbing headlines to emerge in the past few weeks is that Iran might be the winner, at least for now, of the changes sweeping the region. There is a real danger that secular dictatorships in the Middle East may be replaced with repressive theocracies that are just as callous toward individual rights, as happened in Iran in 1979. Lending support to democratic revolutionary movements is one way to encourage newly-forming governments to remain pro-West. Attempting to assist with the transition to democracy is important for the same reason.

For undemocratic countries that are already hostile toward the U.S.—Iran being the primary example and Libya being a close second—the U.S. should do everything it can, short of military invasion, to support democratic protest movements. This should include harsh economic sanctions. For democratic countries that remain or become reliable U.S. allies, the U.S. should provide foreign aid, both military and economic, to ensure that those countries continue to be bastions of stability in the region. At the moment, Israel is the most stably democratic and most solidly pro-West and it is therefore essential that we provide Israel with the military technology and financial assistance it needs to maintain its military superiority within the region. Cutting our dependence on foreign oil would also better enable us to navigate the new foreign policy challenges we face.

The American promise is a declaration that every person has the right to a voice in his or her own government and destiny. The great challenge of this moment is to make that promise an enduring reality across the globe.