As the United States continues its airstrikes against Iran, it’s worth revisiting the term “regime change.” The dictionary definition is straightforward: It’s overthrowing a foreign government and replacing it with one more in line with the views or interests of an outside power.
The scholarly literature paints a grim picture of the typical regime-change mission. Almost all scholars agree that it is hard to succeed and often sabotages future stability in the target country. It’s a mission that, at best, creates only limited progress toward achieving the original goals and, at worst, spirals into an endless state-building project. The scholarly consensus also underscores the danger that these missions may encourage more covert operations from other powers to pursue their own interests, which will only serve to undermine America’s ability to advance its own.
Regime-change missions are hampered by ignorance: The outsiders who intervene typically have little knowledge about the society they’re entering and what it will take to develop a new order that can be trusted. They’ll likely not understand how to build institutions that will have the popular support they need to survive and grow, nor do they know what the local culture can handle.
Attempts to topple foreign governments for parochial reasons are never wise, but the American people deserve to have their leaders backed by a solid intellectual foundation for their policy decisions. The two common mindsets that fuel regime change should be abandoned: the belief that it can create substantial change with minimal effort, and the view that a government must be toppled if it fails to promote certain ideas or interests.