The United States has a rich tradition of forcibly overthrowing foreign governments to advance its own interests. From the CIA-sponsored Operation PBSUCCESS that overthrew Guatemalan dictator Jacobo Arbenz to the more successful Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the US has used covert and overt means to topple foreign leaders it deemed dangerous or unfriendly.
But the scholarly consensus is that regime change missions are rarely a success, and they frequently foster deleterious side effects. Whether they seek to reshape governance for security, economic, or humanitarian reasons, scholars have found that the US’s attempts at regime change often backfire. They sow distrust, spark civil wars, and draw the intervening power into lengthy nation-building projects.
Policymakers should pay close attention to the academic literature and be realistic about what forcible regime change will actually mean. The more they realize that forcible regime change is likely to result in lengthy institution-building and may even fail, the better prepared they will be to find more palatable and less invasive ways to achieve their objectives.
The US may dislike the ideological orientation of the CCP, the clerical junta in Iran, or the dynastic tyranny in North Korea, but these are insufficient grounds for regime change. The US should continue to pursue its objectives in the region through diplomacy and economic pressure, rather than by trying to overthrow these detestable regimes. An understanding of the academic literature will help to dispel myths about regime change and equip policymakers with the tools they need to make smart choices in this crucial arena.