The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: The Failure of Regime‐Change Operations

Bottom Line: The U.S. has a long history of regime change in foreign policy, but there's an emerging consensus among foreign policy scholars that this approach does not achieve its varied objectives and often creates blowback that includes indefinite entanglements. Policymakers should consider the empirical record of regime change before committing to this course of action in the future.

The overuse of regime change as a foreign policy instrument undermines the success of other tools that could enhance American ideals abroad. Nearly every presidential administration since the end of the Cold War has championed advancing democracy as part of their foreign policy purportedly in order to make America safer. When this approach fails, leaders generally blame the execution rather than the underlying philosophy.

The historical record shows that regime change attempts fail and often make conditions worse. Diplomatic relations often sour. Bilateral trade is reduced. And regional security diminishes. Studies show imposing democracy by gunpoint -- whether overtly or covertly -- is ineffective. Out of 28 cases of American regime change, only 3 proved successful in building a lasting democracy.

The most common consequence of regime change efforts is civil war, which occur due to the resulting power vacuum and distrust of the new regime by the local population. Civil wars cause domestic strife, human rights abuses, and civilian deaths. In an attempt to maintain peace, the U.S. is often forced to stay indefinitely.

The U.S. continues to pursue regime change despite its poor record due to various psychological biases of administration officials. Mental models and overconfidence underestimate potential downsides. Officials often end up believing that regime change is necessary. They also put too much reliance on the views and power of marginal opposition groups in the target nation.

Due to the historical record, policymakers shouldn't commit to regime change unless they're willing to invest decades worth of costly military attention. Based on these criteria, most regime change opportunities won't be worth the cost in blood and treasure. 

Read the full policy analysis here.