Whether or not the United States should seek regime change in Venezuela, a conversation on how to confront this crisis is inevitable. The term “regime change” is simple enough: it’s the removal of a government and its replacement with one that is considered more legitimate. It’s often the result of covert military action by a powerful outside party. In fact, the United States has a history of regime-change operations, including helping overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran, sending Guatemalan exiles to kill Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, and sending the Bay of Pigs to Cuba to get rid of Fidel Castro.
The goal of most regime-change policies is to promote democracy or advance economic interests. If these objectives are achieved, the policy is considered a success. However, the evidence suggests that a regime-change campaign’s short-term effects usually outweigh its long-term benefits.
Even after high-profile failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other places, many people in the policy community continue to advocate for ousting illiberal regimes. They argue that this tool can accomplish goals more cheaply and quickly than sustained diplomatic pressure or engagement, and can prevent a crisis from escalating into military action.
Unfortunately, this view is flawed. There is a growing body of academic work that shows that regime-change operations are typically unsuccessful in producing the desired outcomes. As a result, engaging in them can do more harm than good for American interests and the local population. This is especially true if it becomes a regular feature of the foreign policy toolkit.
About the Author
