Regime change involves a foreign country covertly or overtly interfering with another government with the goal of overthrowing it. This might include backing military coups, supplying political proxies, and, in extreme cases, engaging in war to topple an existing regime. Advocates of regime-change policies argue that they can achieve desired policy outcomes more cheaply and quickly than other methods such as diplomacy or engagement. But what if these claims are misleading?
In fact, a number of studies show that regime-change missions typically fail to deliver the promised benefits and often lead to long-lasting instability. Moreover, these interventions usually create a host of problems that are far more expensive than initially estimated.
For example, when the United States declared that the government of Iraq “must go,” it unleashed a brutal conflict that led to widespread violence, increased Iranian influence, and the rise of the Islamic State. In the long run, forcible regime change represents a departure from the principle of Westphalian sovereignty, which holds that what happens inside a nation’s borders should not be the business of other nations.
Despite the poor track record of regime-change initiatives, some officials continue to favor this tool. This is due to cognitive biases that result in a tendency to focus on the desirability of a goal and to avoid thinking about the full resources required for success. Ultimately, policymakers must recognize that forcible regime change will likely involve lengthy institution-building missions that are often more costly than originally estimated.