A policy of regime change seeks to replace an unfavorable foreign government with a pro-American one. This involves covert or overt intervention, including armed forces. It may also include providing nonmilitary assistance to internal opposition groups in the pursuit of this goal.
There are rare instances when regime change works, such as the removal of German or Japanese leaders in World War II. But the unique conditions that permitted these successful cases are unlikely to present themselves again. And the record of regime change overall is sobering: it produces insecurity, undermines democracy, and has tragic humanitarian consequences.
For some officials, regime change remains attractive because it promises a quick and easy fix to complex political problems and to human rights violations. But they need to shift two common mindsets to avoid falling into the trap of this strategy:
First, they should consider the long-term implications of a regime-change operation. The more tinkering you do to an authoritarian state system, the more it will resist your efforts and become more difficult to repair. This is why it’s important to avoid regime-change missions without the support of a broad regional or, ideally, global consensus that the current government must go.
Second, they need to focus on how much American interests are really at stake. The US often pursues regime change for narrow or even parochial interests, such as a desire to control its oil supply in Iran or protect the interests of the United Fruit Company in Guatemala. This can have serious costs for America and creates resentment that will undermine future stability.