Regime change carries many risks. It often causes internal instability and a collapse of state authority. It may spark a civil war, or it can lead to an insurgency led by the ousted leader and local dissidents. In addition, regime change often requires a massive military operation. It also forces a country to engage in lengthy nation-building projects that hamstring its ability to pursue its foreign policy goals.
It is important to note that forcible regime change is often accompanied by major humanitarian disasters. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan, regime change pushed millions of people into the streets to reclaim their homelands, creating the potential for a mass refugee crisis and a prolonged war that hampered U.S. efforts to promote democracy in the region.
Moreover, the use of force for regime change is a violation of Westphalian sovereignty. It takes away the presumption that foreign affairs are the responsibility of the nation-state and instead deems it the obligation of other nations to step in when an odious government threatens world peace.
Despite these dangers, some American officials persist in advocating for regime change. They believe that they are saving the world from odious dictatorships by replacing them with democracies that will be more compliant with U.S. interests. However, these beliefs reflect cognitive biases that lead them to focus on the desired outcome of a policy and to overlook the full resources required for it to succeed. To avoid regime change failure, officials should consider the possibility that their missions could spiral into lengthy institution-building projects, and they should make sure to fully comprehend the costs of such an intervention before embarking on one.