The term “regime change” has become a focus of discussion after President Trump’s announcement of airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites. This type of intervention refers to the overt or covert efforts of foreign governments to reshape the leadership of another country. It has occurred a number of times in the past and often leads to poor outcomes. The Global Nonviolent Action Database at Swarthmore College lists some examples:
One of the most common justifications for regime change is that a corrupt, illegitimate or authoritarian government does harm to its people and that citizens deserve a government that will not harm them. It is true that many dictatorships do ill to their own populations but, for democratic reform to take hold, the conditions must be right. This includes a well-organized opposition, a large population ready to embrace democracy and, ideally, a credible alternative in the wings.
The last four decades have seen a number of these transitions from autocracy to democracy. These include the overthrow of the Portuguese dictatorship in 1974, the popular revolutions that toppled dictators in Central and Eastern Europe in the annus mirabilis of 1989 and in the “color revolutions” of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan in the 21st century.
Regime change advocates argue that it is a valid tool for foreign policy in cases where an illegitimate or corrupt government does serious harm to its people and there is significant organized opposition and a regional or preferably broader public consensus that the regime needs to go. However, there is little evidence that such policies are any more effective or cost-efficient than sustained diplomatic pressure and engagement.