While the conventional wisdom in Washington is that promoting democracy around the world makes America safer, many officials still believe that regime change is a viable tool for ousting odious leaders and advancing American interests. The empirical record, however, shows that armed regime-change missions rarely achieve their intended objectives. They are instead more likely to create unintended consequences, including human rights crises and the empowerment of factions that are as or more dangerous than those presently in power. Furthermore, such operations often sabotage the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools that are more successful at enhancing freedom and promoting US interests.
Policymakers need to shift two common mindsets about regime change. First, they need to recognize that regime-change campaigns rarely deliver on their promises of a quick and easy solution. Instead, they tend to spiral into lengthy state-building projects that ultimately fail to meet predetermined goals. Second, they need to understand that pursuing regime change without sufficient resources will be costly for American policymakers and their allies. It will also make future covert efforts more difficult.
For example, the so-called color revolutions of Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan have all ended up in the hands of authoritarian, pro-Russian governments. Similarly, dueling attempts at regime change in Iran could increase international instability and deter potential allies while failing to produce any substantial gains. These costs and risks far outweigh the short-term benefits of forcible regime change. The United States must rethink its policy of regime change, and seek more sustainable and effective ways to advance its national security interests.