As the crisis in Venezuela deepens, discussion is rife about whether the United States should seek regime change. While the idea of toppling another government is not a foreign policy taboo, precedent and international law do limit what can be accomplished in this way. The term “regime change” describes when a government, through the use of policy tools (including both covert and overt) and military actions, intentionally seeks to alter the leadership or political power structure in another nation-state. This policy often requires substantial time and resources to complete.
The primary problem is that regime-change operations rarely work as intended. They frequently fail to achieve predetermined goals, often producing unintended consequences such as humanitarian crises and weaker internal security within the targeted country. Moreover, the overuse of regime change undermines the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools that are more successful at promoting democracy and strengthening American security around the world.
Trying to force a change of regime is a dangerous path and should only be used when the current government is committing severe atrocities that threaten the lives of the people it claims to govern, and there is a strong organized domestic or regional opposition that wants the dictator to go. It is also helpful if there is an alternative, like Guaido, that the opposition can present to its people and the international community as the new leader.
Despite their poor track record, many American officials continue to support regime-change campaigns. This is due to a combination of cognitive biases that lead them to focus on the desirability of their goals and a tendency to ignore the full resources that are required to execute such policies. This misguided mindset must be shifted. Only then can American officials appreciate that forcible regime-change is not a costless tool, with both its supposed successes and failures often leading to worse outcomes for America’s interests in the long run.