With the US doubling down on its weekend airstrikes, there’s a good chance it will turn its attention to regime change in Iran. Donald Trump has threatened it, and top Republicans like Marco Rubio are openly in favor. The seductiveness of regime change explains its enduring popularity, especially after the Cold War when American leaders envisioned a post-Soviet space full of vibrant democracies aligned with Washington’s interests.
But the reality of regime change is much more complex, costly, and rife with unintended consequences than many policymakers realize or admit. The recurring failure of regime change shows it is inherently dangerous for a superpower to overthrow foreign governments. It is difficult to replace objectionable Middle Eastern regimes and leaders without creating new, different, and often bigger problems.
The definition of regime change is the forcible replacement of a nation’s leadership by external parties, dictionary definitions agree. It’s the antithesis of the principle of Westphalian sovereignty, which holds that what happens inside a country’s borders is nobody else’s business.
As a result, the overuse of regime-change policies undermines the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools that are more successful at promoting democracy and strengthening America’s security. Instead, we should adopt George Kennan’s wise advice almost 75 years ago and focus on “long-term containment, the use of diplomacy, engagement, defense, development, alliances, assistance, and a powerful example to bring about peaceful change.”