The conventional wisdom in Washington is that regime change makes the world safer. After all, American operations to topple the odious regimes of Saddam Hussein and al-Assad supposedly proved that democracy promotes stability. So, it should be no surprise that the Trump administration has been considering targeting regimes in Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.
The problem is that a policy of regime change rarely works. Instead, it has serious long-term costs that far outweigh the short-term benefits. And even when these policies fail, they often spark blowback that makes it difficult to achieve future policy goals.
A key reason for these problems is that regime change is a risky strategy to pursue. In the long run, it can make countries more unstable and less safe for American interests. Furthermore, it can trigger a vicious cycle where a foreign power triggers a chain reaction of events that escalates to war.
One of the most critical issues is that regime change requires an adequate understanding of local society and culture. If foreign powers don’t have a good grasp of these factors, they will likely have trouble creating new institutions that are seen as legitimate by the local population.
The other issue is that there needs to be an actual alternative in place before a regime can be removed. For example, in order to overthrow the government of Venezuela, the United States would need to have someone who claims to be the legitimate president ready to step in. That person – such as Juan Guaido – would need to demonstrate that he will bend to the will of the United States.