Regime change policies typically involve an outside country covertly or overtly interfering in a foreign government to forcibly oust the current regime. Regardless of the specific strategy utilized, however, the goal is to replace the existing government with a friendlier one, either in order to spread democracy or promote economic interests. These policies are highly risky and frequently fail to deliver on their promises.
Academic research reveals a paucity of cases in which armed regime-change missions have succeeded as intended. Instead, they often lead to unintended consequences such as humanitarian crises and weaker internal security within the targeted state. As a result, the use of force to supplant illiberal regimes is far more costly than policymakers commonly admit.
The reasons why regime change policies so rarely succeed are multifaceted. They often stem from cognitive biases that cause interveners to focus on the desirability of the goals without considering what would be required to accomplish them. In addition, they are usually misinformed by faulty information or sources with a vested interest in the outcome of the operation. Finally, they tend to overlook the competing principals problem.
Ultimately, policymakers should consider the long-term aggregate effects of regime change, which can far outweigh any short-term benefits. Otherwise, they may find themselves trapped in lengthy nation-building projects that detract from their core values and undermine their credibility abroad. Moreover, these operations often trigger domestic opposition to the United States and make it harder for us to engage with foreign governments in addressing shared challenges.