If a regime is committing atrocities, has substantial organized domestic opposition and if there is a regional or preferably a broader consensus that the regime needs to go, regime change efforts may be warranted. Often, these policies involve attempts to promote democracy or advance economic interests. In most cases, however, they fail. This is mostly because to be effective a regime-change policy must have a significant number of people in the targeted country that want the current government gone as well as a viable alternative ready to take over power once it is removed.
Regardless of these caveats, the academic literature shows that foreign-led armed regime-change operations rarely succeed as intended and typically produce unintended consequences such as state collapse and humanitarian crises. This reality, combined with cognitive biases that lead to a focus on desirability and neglect of cost, makes it difficult for policymakers to consider the true scope of the difficulties associated with imposing regime change abroad.
This is why it is important to examine a regime’s record, the reasons that its people desire its removal and whether there is a credible alternative in place. It is also important to understand that a policy of regime change erodes the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools to promote democracy and human rights and exacerbates America’s national security challenges in the long run. A world in which autocratic rulers believe they can commit aggression against their people and still escape existential retaliation will be one in which freedom cannot survive.