The United States has used covert and overt policy mechanisms to promote regime change around the world in pursuit of its political, security, economic, and humanitarian interests. However, the practice has come under intense scrutiny in recent years. A growing scholarly consensus shows that foreign regime-change missions are often ineffective and produce deleterious side effects. These missions usually fail to achieve their predetermined goals, spark civil wars, and entangle the foreign intervener in lengthy nation-building projects. Furthermore, they make the United States more vulnerable to attack from peer competitors such as China and Russia.
In general, regime change advocates argue that a corrupt or odious government should be removed by force in order to advance America’s national interests. The most prominent example is the US invasion of Iraq, which replaced Saddam Hussein with a government that committed extensive human rights abuses. Other examples include the coup in 1954 against a democratically elected government of Guatemala, engineered to protect United Fruit Company profits, and the ongoing effort to remove the governments of Venezuela and Iran for their perceived anti-American leanings.
Despite the clear failures of these efforts, many in Washington persist in advocating regime change to improve US security or economic conditions. A better understanding of the existing scholarly literature can help American officials avoid the pitfalls that have traditionally accompanied regime-change missions. To begin, they must shift common mindsets. First, they must acknowledge that a more democratic world is not necessarily in America’s interest. Second, they must recognize that promoting democracy is often an ineffective strategy for achieving desired policy outcomes.