I was so surprised to learn that Jack Goldstone is into promoting revolutions abroad

Commenting on McCain's "bold" call for NATO intervention

Without substantial material support to the opposition, however, sanctions may have a different effect:  they may prompt Assad to fully crush the opposition as rapidly and completely as possible in order to eliminate any alternative before the external sanctions peel away his remaining support.
If Assad manages to remain in power, the result will be an emboldened Iran, with Syria more deeply in its debt, and greater confidence among Iran’s other regional allies, Hezbollah and Hamas.  Other counter-revolutionary forces in the region will gain confidence as well, and autocrats throughout the world are likely to draw the lesson that crushing any popular opposition quickly and thoroughly is far more likelier than reform to preserve their power.
In the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, revolutions against absolute monarchies scored success after success, producing new constitutional regimes from 1776 in America to 1789 in France, and on to Holland and Belgium and Greece.  But in 1848 the wave broke and was turned back when Russia supported Austria’s counter-revolution.   Whether Iran and Russia help Syria to crush its popular revolt may similarly determine the fate of democracy across the region for decades to come.

 Ah yes, the neverending game of emboldening and (what's the opposite of emboldening?) Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. But really, the surprising thing is his reference to "success after success" of 18th and 19th century revolutions . . . I always took him as more of a conservative, "revolutions often cause more harm than good" type. I guess I can see the other side of it though, since he tends to blame the short-sightedness of elites for the crises that lead to revolutions (a criticism he's been extending to the U.S. as well).