Regime change occurs when one foreign country covertly or overtly interferes with another nation’s government with the intent of removing and replacing it. The goal is usually to replace an odious regime with a friendlier one, whether for spreading democracy or furthering economic interests. Often, these policies fail.
Despite a wealth of academic studies demonstrating their flaws, the strategic impulse to forcibly remove antagonistic or noncompliant regimes persists. It is based on the notion that the use of force makes it easier to promote democracy and advance American security interests. Yet the historical record demonstrates that armed regime change missions rarely succeed as intended, and often produce unintended consequences such as humanitarian crises, political instability, and internal security threats.
The primary reason for this failure is that it is impossible to change a government without the consent of its people. Even if the previous regime was deeply unpopular, it is unlikely that a new one will gain their support once it comes to power. In addition, foreign actors typically do not have enough knowledge of local societies to create institutions that will be accepted as legitimate by local populations.
The result is that imposed leaders must satisfy the demands of external patrons and domestic populations at the same time, and taking actions that please one often alienates the other. This dynamic drives domestic resistance and destabilizes societies in the process. This is why so many of the failed coups of recent years—from the U.S.-backed overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala to the ousting of Mohammad Mossadegh and Salvador Allende in Chile to the current campaign against Iran—have been accompanied by popular insurgencies and a sense of injustice among their victims.
About the Author
