Even after a litany of failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, some still call for forcibly overthrowing regimes that do not align with their foreign policy goals. The logic is that regime change is a quicker, cheaper alternative to sustained diplomatic pressure or even war. But a closer look at the historical record shows that forcibly removing leaders and replacing them with new ones is far less effective than advocates think.
In fact, regime change often ends up making things worse. The reason is that the political and economic conditions for a democracy to thrive must be in place. For example, if the government has widespread popular support it will be more likely to resist external pressure or thwart threats to internal stability. Moreover, the foreign power that topples the old government often lacks the domestic knowledge and cultural understanding to create a governance structure that is genuinely beneficial for local citizens.
For example, in the aftermath of the Assad regime collapse, outside powers like the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia were eager to support anti-government forces. But the resulting civil war has left more than half a million people dead and is threatening to grow even further.
Rather than promoting democracy and advancing American interests, regime-change policies usually undermine them. The overuse of this strategy undermines the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools that are more successful and harms America’s national security. And it breeds distrust among foreign populations about American intentions, which can hamstring the U.S.’s future policy goals.