Regime change is a seductive idea for a superpower that seeks to promote its values and advance its interests. But the results are often tainted. In fact, decades of regime-change interventions have led to the opposite of what was originally intended. They can spark civil war, erode democracy, escalate repression, and drag foreign interveners into lengthy nation-building projects.
The dictionary definition of regime change focuses on the removal of a country’s leadership, usually by force. But the term also refers to an attempt to create a new government that better fits an outside nation’s interests. The United States has engaged in regime-change policies since at least 1898, including the CIA’s attempts to overthrow leaders of Mexico and Haiti, its covert campaign to replace Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran, and the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. The US and the Soviet Union fought overt and covert wars to overthrow governments in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere from the 1960s until the 1980s.
But overusing the regime-change tool can undermine the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools that are more successful at spreading democracy and advancing U.S. interests, particularly when the effort is based on unsubstantiated claims that a country is developing weapons of mass destruction. And the use of covert non-lethal and lethal aid to bolster internal opposition forces can also lead to civil war, a higher risk of international conflict, and increased resentment toward the foreign intervener.