While the US government should encourage democracy and human rights around the world, attempting to force regime change is dangerous and ineffective. This is especially true when the regime change mission involves the use or threat of armed force. Using force to promote regime change can also spawn unintended consequences such as humanitarian crises and political instability.
In a broad sense, regime change is the replacement of a nation’s leadership. This can be accomplished by a revolution, war, coup, or some other means of overthrowing the current government.
Regardless of the method, it’s important to understand what makes a regime ripe for change. In most cases, regime change is triggered by domestic discontent with a government’s policies or the behavior of its leaders. It can also be triggered by economic instability or social movements.
The key to successful regime change is creating or leveraging intrinsic motivations for citizens to support opposition efforts. This includes fostering civic engagement, organizing protests, and mobilizing citizens to demand change. It’s also necessary to recognize that nonviolent resistance is typically a gradual process and the success of a movement requires time and patience.
Despite high-profile failures such as the Iraq war, many in the policy community continue to call for ousting illiberal regimes. They argue that this tool achieves objectives more cheaply and quickly than sustained diplomatic pressure and engagement and is less likely to escalate into broader military action. However, academic research reveals that armed regime-change missions rarely succeed as intended and often produce unintended consequences that far outweigh any short-term benefits.