Is the Policy of Regime Change in the Best Interest of the U.S.?

Netherlands, 14.4. 2024

During the last 80 years of my lifetime our world has often been influenced by American-, but also Russian- exceptionalism under the assumption “might makes right.”  

Reflecting on the question “Is the U.S. foreign policy of “regime-change” in the best interest of the United States and the world?” The roots of U.S. regime chance policy can be traced back to the early years of the nation’s history shaped by a combination of geopolitical interests, ideological imperatives, and strategic calculations. From the era of Manifest destiny to the post-World War II era of superpower rivalry central to the foreign policy agenda of the U.S. has been the pursuit of regime change- the deliberate effort to overthrow existing governments and install administrations more aligned with US interests.

This is a contentious issue, and the answer depends on the specific circumstances of each case and the broader geopolitical context these events take place. This raises important questions about the benefits and risks, whereby supporters arguing that liberty and freedom is a worthy cause and this can promote democracy and stability in regions where oppressive regimes threaten human rights and global security.

However, the majority of realists content when looking through the lens of power dynamics and national interest, the history of intervention shows, and since WWII there have been more than fifty-five instances of the U.S. overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government, they have been largely unsuccessful, both in economic growth as increasing the fostering democracy, and have a destabilizing effect and have the potential for unintended consequences, including civil unrest, power vacuums, and increased anti-American sentiment. This underscores the complexity and unpredictability of this policy.

Those of us, who subscribe to this assertion suggest, the policy of “regime-change” violates international law and creates more adversaries, destabilizes regions and contributes to the greater power competition between the U.S., Russia and China.

American neoconservatives and democratic interventionists often cite successful instances of state-building in Germany and Japan after World War II as examples of the potential benefits of regime change. They also emphasize the threats posed by ideologies like communism, authoritarianism, and extremism, which they argue justify intervention.

However, this seems a self-serving argument and with this they ignore that the historical context and conditions in post-war Germany and Japan were vastly different from today’s world in which these interventions take place, which have shown shifting power dynamics, evolving geopolitical challenges, and changing cultural and social landscapes. The world today is characterized by multipolarity, with multiple centers of power competing for influence and resources. This dynamic contrasts with the bipolarity of the Cold War era and the unipolarity dominated by the United States in the immediate aftermath of World War II.

The Biden administration’s follows the interventionists by emphasizing on the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, which aligns with broader American foreign policy objectives, to protect what is seen as America’s vital interests, a approach that has contributed to increased geopolitical competition, particularly between the United States and China.

However, this is a world is anarchic rather than hierarchic and international relations have a fluid nature, whereby the day-to-day reality revolves around nations’ infinite interests, regardless of whether this violates prevailing or written rules of international institutions. Nations, in the pursuit of self-preservation, engage in a competition for power based on ‘balance of power’ policies and ‘realpolitik,’ where conflicts are ever-present possibilities.

Overlooking the scenery, in the post-World War II era, the United States has been long the leading power among the free nations which led in 1948 under President Truman not only to the creation of NATO, but also to the creation of the UN, IMF, World bank and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which spelled out the framework for holding governments accountable for violation basic standard of civilization followed in 1951 by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

We have moved towards a community of nations in which international relationships are based on international norms, principles, and International Law. For the relationship between EU, Russia, and US this was also influenced by the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1990 Charter of Paris for New Europe. I conclude the US has primarily been a source for good committed to liberty, justice and peace. 

However, this has not been without conflict and at great human and economic costs, as the US started and was involved in 5 different wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan and Iraq II which they had difficulty finishing or were not able to finish, whereby its remarkable that since 1992 the US was involved in 180+ military conflicts.

The U.S. military, in order to protect what is seen as America’s vital interests, has over 800 bases worldwide, more than any other nation or empire in history. In order to staff, equip, and maintain this body, the U.S. spends more on defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, and France combined with the Pentagon having a $877.0 billion spending bill for fiscal year 2022.

This coincides with a significant increase in the national debt over the past 30 years, reaching around 33.80 trillion U.S. dollars in December 2023, projected to hit about 52 trillion U.S. dollars in 2033. The debt/GDP Ratio has grown from 34,72 % in 1980 to 122,14 % in 2023.

The case can made today’s high level of national debt is unsustainable and as history of relative and industrial decline of the major empires during the last 500 years in the world shows, all these empires grappled with the problem of military overextension.

Paul Kennedy pointed out in his excellent book “The rise and fall of the great powers” once nations overstrain themselves militarily their leadership position starts to show signs of economic and military erosion “They are like an old man attempting to work beyond his natural strength and they have difficulty to paraphrase Bismarck to travel on “the stream of time” and fall into relative decline.”

Not surprisingly, the world has witnessed American adventurism, often based on the policy of regime-change supported by sanctions, a policy mostly followed  by the UK and sometimes reluctantly reinforced by the EU. Certainly, Russia played its part and although Russia likes to play being victimized by the West, especial accusing the European elite, conveniently ignoring Stalin’s 1939 pact with Hitler under which Poland was invaded and the 40 year long occupation of the former Warsaw pact countries. The same can be said about Valdimir Putin’s strategic blunder of invading Ukraine, which will keep Russia more isolated for the years to come.

We have witnessed Russian adventurism in Hungary, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine and other places which have resulted in repression and in enormous destructive exercises in futility, like all conflicts and war do. In all of this the conclusion can only be that before the German unification NATO has brought security and stability to Europe and has limited aggressive escalation by Russia.

But, since the start of the new millennium, by ignoring Russia’s sphere of the influence this has complicated matters on the global landscape. In 2002, the  George W Bush administration influenced by the neoconservatives and democratic interventionists, one of the most fundamental and useful concepts of geopolitics became obsolete.

• Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described a new world “in which great power is defined not by spheres of influence . . . or the strong imposing their will on the weak.”
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that “the United States does not recognize spheres of influence.”
• Secretary of State John Kerry proclaimed that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over,” ending almost two centuries of the United States staking claim to its own sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere which led to the Cuba crisis in 1963.

The Bush administration ceased to recognize spheres of influence—the ability of other powers to demand deference from other states in their own regions or exert predominant control there—not because the concept had become obsolete. Rather, the entire world had become after the dissolution of the former Soviet Union a de facto American sphere. Spheres of influence had given way to a sphere of influence.

The American hegemon under Bush imposed their will for a short period of time on the rest of the world, compelled to follow American rules, or else face a steep price, from crippling sanctions to outright regime change. The Spheres of influence collapsed into one, by the overwhelming fact of U.S. hegemon. With Bush suggesting “American greatness is measured by their willingness to be a great power—through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement.”

George W. Bush, and Condoleezza Rice envisioned with the invasion of Iraq, and the aggressive promotion of democracy across the Middle East, they could extend to the Arab world the liberal, democratic order that had sustained peace and prosperity in the West. The world has not recovered yet from this decision.

This led George W Bush to proclaim, “the new system in the world today is rested on American Primacy.” The National Security paper central assertion was all but expunges the instinctive internationalization of Roosevelt and Truman. Concluding America’s global power must not be challenged.

The 2002 national security report bristled with threats of military action — unilateral, if need be — in the name of principles that are “right and true for every person, in every society.” As Woodrow Wilson said during WW I, “There is one response for us, force, force to the utmost, force without stint or limit, the righteous and triumphant force which shall make right the law of the world”.

US administrations have lived by the sword and understand that total victory in war commands total obedience from the defeated and opens a way to unhindered realization of political and economic objectives.

Looking at our modern 21st Society, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the US and Britain with policies based on US primacy have greatly contributed to the changes and destabilization of the Arab peninsula like they have done everywhere in the world and have influenced and changed its social face.

The decolonization of Northern Africa and the Middle East first played a role, with this came further destabilization of the region, Arab nationalism and a destructive Marxist ideology and ultimately these developments led to links and inclusion into the World capitalist systems.

During the Obama and Biden Presidencies the tone was more civilized but the interventionist strategy and securing Israel’s security interests is still the same, no matter if the current Netanyahu government is disconnected from reality, a government which champions fundamentalism, fascism and parochialism, follows a policy which has elements of Genocide intent, of the state intent to destroy the Palestinian people in whole or in part.

Today the 81-year-old American president Joe Biden with his unequivocal support for Israel still clings to the version of what Israel once was and hoped to be. But today Israel has nothing in common with David Ben-Gurion secular Israel and we see the result of catastrophic American and British diplomacy in the Middle East.  Today’s Israel has all the making of ceasing to be a democracy and in light of its political and military conduct, and in the years to come becoming a theocracy, similar to today’s Iran.

The main events, often influenced by Israeli-American interests can be characterized as follows:

• support for the house of Saud and Wahhabism indirectly;
• overthrowing in 1953 the Government of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran;
• full support to the Wahhabi’s during 1979-1989 in Afghanistan, when the Mujahidin were employed, financed and armed just like Osama Bin Laden was;
• unlimited support for the state of Israel and its security interests
• Israel/Palestine conflict;
• Iraq war; Afghanistan war leading to IS;
• US/EU adventurism including “regime change” in Libya, Syria and the Ukraine;
• support for authoritarians in the region, relocations US Embassy to Jerusalem, cancellation Iran agreements and John Bolton’s suggestion “The only thing that will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons is regime change in Tehran.”;
• support for the orange revolution in Ukraine and to join NATO and EU and today seeking to facilitate regime change in Russia.

The US strategy of “regime change” has a long history of overthrowing regimes to install a government which more aligns with US foreign policy interests. This dates back to William Mckinley and Theodore Roosevelt. Over time the results of sponsored regime-change and sanction strategies have not stabilized the world, to the contrary, and have shown themselves as largely unsuccessful and give no reason to think this is a benevolent and successful strategy, nevertheless the US has persisted in following this questionable strategy (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya.)

There are usually two reasons (democratic and economic) for the US to initiate a campaign to facilitate regime change. The first is to foster democracy, whereby the US takes a active role in state building and maintains a military presence like seen after WWII in Germany and Japan or more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. The other reason, if vital American interests are at stake and the local government is threatening those interests, which are usually economic ones in these nations.

American economic “oil” interests  were at stake when Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was disposed during the CIA coup of 1953 in Iran which restored to power the Shah Pahlavi, which is still a highly resented step which ultimately led to the 1979 Revolution and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini, which destabilizing effects in the middle east are still are felt today.

This continued, unquestionable with the best intentions in Vietnam, liberty, and freedom is a worthy cause, but nevertheless the results have been rather disturbing and changed the fabric of American society. The attempts at “Regime Change” have brought questionable results to the World (Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chili, Nicaragua, Serbia, Iraq, Libya.) In the Middle East region these interventions have strengthened extremist groups, exacerbated regional conflicts, and erosion of stability in the region and US support strengthened the  position of Israel.

In all of this the Palestinian question still plays a major role which made for war and oppressive conservatism. Israel intransigence, the occupied territories, the war crimes continue to give the most extreme elements the advantage. How Lebanon was destroyed was the result of the whole dynamics.

US bolstering Saddam Hussein during the Iran – Iraq war 1980-1988 when the CIA supplied intelligence information shows the fragile nature following “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and in 2004 overthrew Saddam when interests conflicted. So was the support for the House of Saud and Wahhabism in general, this fundamentalist and radical ultra conservative movement which was employed, financed and armed in the 1980’s , during the Russian/Afghanistan 1979-1989 proxy war, like Osama bin Laden was. After having been used for US purposes Osama bin Laden became with 9/11 a problem of their own making.

Additional “regime-change” wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have contributed to the decline of American hegemony since the Bush era and has shifted the global landscape, leading to increased influence from rising powers like China.

Moreover, this has also played a significant role in creating the extremist environment of which Islam Society is as much victimized as Western Society is. The conclusion can only be that unless we take away the reasons for Al Qaida, ISIS and other extremist group, new terrorist Groups will replace the old ones. The same applies to the situation in Palestine.

It was there for touching when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, Foreign Secretary Kerry lectured Russia and the world “ we do not live in the 19th century but in the 21st century.” This statement seems ironic, or else seems to indicate our world occasional has been touched by a acute case of amnesia. One might wonder how the country that over time meddled in elections and invaded pretty much every Central American country to facilitate the policy of regime change,  and invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and attacked Libya; threatens Iran with an attack comes to this assessment.

Our world has become multi-polar in the 21st century with the economic rise of China the US and the European Union,  America’s useful vasal but it would be useful to understand that today pragmatic realism is required, abandoning the uni-polar ideas and return to the concept of dealing with China, Russia and the world in a more balanced manner, instead of facilitating proxy wars and acting aggressively towards them.

WJJH 14.4.2024

Diatribe: realist view, reflecting on the historical influence of American and Russian exceptionalism and the implications of the U.S. foreign policy of “regime-change.” Emphasizing the complex geopolitical context, the potential consequences of intervention, the transitioning global power dynamics and the impact of interventions on international and regional stability.