A dispute between idealism and realism in International Relations theory is both widely known and still unresolved. Although one can find more arguments in favour of the latter perspective, once in a while the proponents of idealism – backed with solid evidence from international politics – raise justified objections. This phenomenon applies especially to the American foreign policy which provides many examples of the continuous rivalry between both paradigms. The article refers to that discourse and conducts an analysis of the U.S. policy towards the Arab Spring, where noble (and idealistic) values clashed with hard (and realist) interests. While addressing the question – idealism or realism? – the paper offers a slightly different approach to the subject. It distinguishes the “instrumental idealism” (which in fact is a disguised realism) and the “pure idealism” (which truly pursues its goals). Six countries, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, serve as case studies for the analysis. The article argues that the U.S. conducted a heterogeneous policy towards the Arab Spring, employing three approaches – realism in Yemen and Bahrain, idealism in Libya, and the combination of both in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria
