Navigating the Complexities of US Foreign Policy and Regime Change

Navigating the Complexities of US Foreign Policy and Regime Change

1. Introduction:

In the annals of modern history, the United States has often found itself at the forefront of global affairs, wielding significant influence over the course of international relations. Central to its foreign policy agenda has been the pursuit of regime change — the deliberate effort to overthrow existing governments and install administrations more aligned with US interests. This strategy, spanning decades and continents, has left an enduring legacy on the geopolitical landscape, shaping the destinies of nations and peoples around the world.

At its core, driven by America’s interventionist impulses, the US strategy of regime change reflects a complex interplay of ideological, strategic, and economic considerations. Motivated by a desire to spread democracy, safeguard economic interests, and maintain geopolitical dominance, successive administrations have employed a range of tactics, from covert operations to overt military interventions, to achieve their objectives. Yet, as noted by Henry Kissinger, there exists a tension between the idealistic aspirations of remaking the world in America’s image and the pragmatic realities of historical and cultural difference. This tension underscores the inherent complexities and challenges of US interventionism, raising fundamental questions about the efficacy, morality, and long-term consequences of such endeavours.

This introduction serves as a prelude to an exploration the evolution of US regime change policy placed the larger framework of American hegemony and the transition to a multipolar world. In the pages that follow, we will visit the historical evolution of this strategy, examining key events and interventions that have shaped its trajectory. We will question the motivations and objectives driving US actions, dissecting the complex web of factors that inform its decision-making processes. Through the lens of eight case studies, we will uncover the multifaceted nature of regime change efforts and their far-reaching impacts on target countries, regions, and global stability.

Critically, the ethical, geopolitical, and practical dilemmas inherent in US regime change policy are confronted. From unintended consequences and blowback to the erosion of sovereignty and the perpetuation of conflict, we will grapple with the complexities and contradictions that define this contentious aspect of American foreign policy. Moreover, alternative approaches to addressing global challenges are explored, offering insights into a more balanced, pragmatic, and inclusive vision for the future of US engagement with the world.

2. Historical Context:

Evolution of US Regime Change Policy

The roots of US regime change 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, the United States has consistently sought to assert its influence and shape the course of global affairs through interventions aimed at overthrowing or manipulating foreign governments.

Manifest Destiny and Expansionism (19th Century):

In the 19th century, the ideology of Manifest Destiny fuelled America’s westward expansion, driven by a belief in the nation’s inherent superiority and divine mandate to spread its influence across the continent. This expansionist fervour laid the groundwork for later interventions abroad, as the United States sought to extend its reach beyond its borders.

Interventions in Latin America (Early 20th Century):

During the early 20th century, the United States engaged in a series of interventions in Latin America, often justified by the need to protect American interests and promote stability in the region. Examples include the overthrow of governments in countries such as Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, where US interests were perceived to be threatened. Additionally, the US frequently meddled in the electoral processes of various Latin American countries to install governments favourable to its interests.

World War II and the Cold War (Mid-20th Century):

The aftermath of World War II ushered in a new era of global competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, setting the stage for the Cold War. In this context, US regime change efforts were often driven by the imperative to contain the spread of communism and safeguard American interests in strategically important regions.

Notable examples include the CIA-backed coup in Iran in 1953, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstated the pro-Western Shah, and the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba in 1961, aimed at overthrowing Fidel Castro’s communist regime. The Cuban intervention stands out as one of the instances where US regime change attempts failed, leading to strained relations between the two countries for decades.

Post-Cold War Interventions (Late 20th Century to Present):

With the end of the Cold War, US interventions took on new dimensions, characterized by a mix of humanitarian interventionism, democracy promotion, and the pursuit of strategic interests. However, these interventions have been marked by controversy and mixed results, from the intervention in Iraq in 2003 to the ongoing conflict in Syria. Sanctions have also been frequently utilized as a tool of coercion in US foreign policy, often targeting regimes perceived as hostile to American interests.

Contemporary Challenges and Shifts in Strategy:

In recent years, the United States has faced new challenges and shifts in its approach to regime change. The rise of non-state actors, the proliferation of asymmetric threats, and the emergence of new geopolitical rivals have forced policymakers to reassess traditional strategies and adopt more nuanced approaches to intervention.

Post-World War II Hegemony and Economic Advantages:

The United States emerged from World War II as the preeminent global superpower, wielding unparalleled military, economic, and political influence. Bolstered by its victorious role in the war and its leadership in the establishment of key international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, the US assumed a dominant position on the world stage.

This hegemonic status conferred significant economic advantages upon the United States, allowing it to shape the rules of the international economic order to its benefit. The Bretton Woods system, established in 1944, pegged international currencies to the US dollar and established the dollar as the primary reserve currency, providing the US with considerable economic leverage and facilitating its global trade and investment activities.

Moreover, the United States leveraged its influence within international institutions to promote policies and initiatives that advanced its economic interests, from trade liberalization to financial deregulation. The dominance of the US dollar as the global reserve currency, coupled with its control over key international institutions, underpinned the stability and prosperity of the post-war economic order, while also affording the US significant economic advantages and geopolitical influence.

3. Motivations and Objectives:

Rationale Behind US Regime Change Policy

The motivations and objectives driving US regime change policy are multifaceted, reflecting a complex interplay of ideological, strategic, and economic considerations. Understanding these underlying factors is crucial for deciphering the rationale behind America’s interventionist impulses and the pursuit of regime change abroad.

Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights:

One oft-cited rationale for US regime change efforts is the promotion of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Proponents argue that authoritarian regimes pose a threat to global stability and security, and that replacing such regimes with democratic governments can foster greater freedom, prosperity, and respect for human rights. Examples include US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, framed as efforts to promote democracy and liberate oppressed populations from tyranny.

Protection of National Security and Strategic Interests:

Another key driver of US regime change policy is the protection of national security and strategic interests. This includes safeguarding access to vital resources, such as oil and natural gas, ensuring the security of key allies and partners, and countering perceived threats to US interests abroad. Interventions in countries like Iran and Venezuela, where US interests in resource extraction and geopolitical influence are at stake, underscore the strategic imperatives driving regime change efforts.

Containment of Adversarial Regimes and Ideologies:

US regime change policy has also been motivated by the imperative to contain adversarial regimes and ideologies deemed hostile to American interests. During the Cold War, the containment of communism served as a driving force behind US interventions in countries such as Vietnam and Cuba. In the post-Cold War era, the fight against terrorism and the spread of radical Islamist ideologies have likewise informed US interventionist strategies in regions like the Middle East and South Asia.

Economic Considerations and Corporate Interests:

Economic considerations and corporate interests play a significant role in shaping US regime change policy. The pursuit of access to foreign markets, natural resources, and investment opportunities often drives interventionist impulses, with multinational corporations and economic elites exerting influence over foreign policy decisions. Instances of economic sanctions, trade embargoes, and covert operations aimed at securing favourable economic conditions highlight the intersection of economic interests and regime change objectives.

There is a complex web of factors driving US regime change policy and the underlying dynamics shaping America’s interventionist agenda. From ideological imperatives to strategic calculations and economic interests, these factors converge to inform the pursuit of regime change abroad, with far-reaching implications for global stability, security, and the balance of power.

4. Shift in Strategic Calculations:

Bush Administration and the Absoluteness of Spheres of Interest

The presidency of George W. Bush represented a notable departure from previous US foreign policy approaches, particularly in its treatment of “spheres of interest” and the assertion of American hegemony on the global stage. Under the Bush administration, the concept of “spheres of interest” took on a new absoluteness, with profound consequences for the stability of the global village.

Rejection of Spheres of Interest:

The Bush administration rejected the traditional notion of “spheres of interest,” whereby major powers recognized and respected each other’s influence in designated regions. Instead, the United States asserted its hegemonic ambitions, seeking to extend its influence and impose its will on the international community with little regard for the interests or sovereignty of other nations.

Unilateralism and Pre-emptive Action:

Central to the Bush administration’s approach was a doctrine of unilateralism and pre-emptive action, exemplified by the 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of combating weapons of mass destruction. This departure from multilateralism and adherence to international norms eroded trust and cooperation among nations, fuelling resentment and resistance to US interventionism.

Promotion of American Primacy:

The Bush administration’s foreign policy agenda was driven by a vision of American primacy, wherein the United States asserted its dominance as the preeminent global superpower. This pursuit of primacy entailed the imposition of American values, norms, and interests on the international community, often through military force and coercive diplomacy.

Consequences for Global Stability:

The absoluteness of US spheres of interest and the assertion of American primacy had profound consequences for global stability, exacerbating tensions, fostering resentment, and undermining international cooperation. The unilateralist and interventionist approach of the Bush administration contributed to polarization, conflict, and instability in regions such as the Middle East, where US-led interventions fuelled insurgency and sectarian violence.

Legacy of the Bush Doctrine:

The legacy of the Bush administration’s foreign policy continues to reverberate in the international arena, shaping perceptions of US power and influence. While subsequent administrations have sought to recalibrate America’s approach to foreign policy, the unilateralist and interventionist tendencies of the Bush doctrine have left a lasting imprint on global politics, challenging the principles of multilateralism, diplomacy, and collective security.

5. Transition to a Multipolar World:

Legacy of US Hegemony and Contemporary Conflicts

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s observation that the era of US hegemony lasted at most twenty years underscores the transient nature of American dominance on the global stage. The end of the Cold War heralded a period of unipolarity, with the United States emerging as the sole superpower, wielding unrivalled military, economic, and political influence. However, this period of hegemony proved to be fleeting, giving way to multipolar world characterized by the resurgence of competing powers and the erosion of US primacy.

Legacy of US Hegemony:

The era of US hegemony left an indelible mark on global affairs, shaping the contours of international politics and establishing the United States as the preeminent global superpower. During this period, American dominance was manifest in its unrivalled military capabilities, economic prowess, and cultural influence, as well as its leadership role in shaping the rules of the international order.

Transition to Multipolarity:

Despite its initial dominance, US hegemony proved to be unsustainable in the long run, as the emergence of new geopolitical rivals and the resurgence of regional powers challenged America’s position of primacy. The rise of China as a global economic powerhouse, the resurgence of Russia as a geopolitical actor, and the growing assertiveness of other regional powers signalled the transition to a multipolar world order.

Contemporary Conflicts and Interventionist Strategies:

The legacy of US hegemony and the transition to a multipolar world have profound implications for contemporary conflicts and interventionist strategies. While the tone of US foreign policy may have evolved under successive administrations, from the Bush era to the Obama and Biden presidencies, the underlying interventionist impulses have persisted, albeit with varying degrees of nuance and sophistication.

The conflict in Ukraine, often viewed as a legacy of the Bush administration’s interventionist agenda, underscores the enduring legacy of US foreign policy in shaping contemporary geopolitical dynamics. Despite efforts to recalibrate America’s approach to foreign policy, the interventionist tendencies of the past continue to influence US actions on the global stage.

Implications for Global Stability:

The transition to a multipolar world order and the persistence of interventionist strategies have profound implications for global stability and security. As competing powers jockey for influence and resources in an increasingly multipolar environment, the risk of geopolitical competition, regional conflicts, and great power rivalry looms large, challenging the stability of the international order.

General Observations on Regime Change Interventions:

Regime change interventions, whether overt or covert, have been a recurring feature of US foreign policy, with varying degrees of success and unintended consequences. Here are some key observations regarding the rationale, execution, and consequences of such interventions:

Lack of Historical and Cultural Understanding:

Regime change interventions often reflect a lack of nuanced understanding of the historical and cultural context of target countries. This can lead to overestimation of the feasibility of intervention, underestimation of the costs involved (Iraq – US$ 7 trillion) , and a misunderstanding of the reception by the local population. The failure to appreciate these factors can result in misjudgements and miscalculations with significant human and financial costs.

Misconceptions and Overstated Threats:

Many regime change interventions have been justified on the basis of overstated threats or misconceptions about the welcome that foreign intervention would receive. Examples include Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that US troops would be “greeted as liberators” in Iraq, which proved to be far from reality. Such misconceptions can lead to flawed decision-making and exacerbate the challenges of post-regime-change governance.

Political and Security Vacuums:

Regime change interventions often result in political and security vacuums, creating opportunities for power struggles, internal strife, and external interference. When the vacuum is filled by external actors, particularly the intervening power, it can engender resentment among the local population and neighbouring states, further destabilizing the region.

Long-Term Nation-Building Challenges:

Nation-building and post-regime-change stabilization efforts are complex and time-consuming processes that defy short-term solutions. The preference of the US public for quick fixes can undermine sustained efforts at stabilization and reconstruction, leading to disillusionment and waning support for interventionist policies.

Criteria for Considering Regime Change:

Regime change should only be considered under exceptional circumstances, such as mass terrorism, genocide, or imminent security threats that cannot be addressed through diplomatic or non-military means. Even in such cases, regime change should be approached cautiously and as a last resort, with a clear understanding of the potential costs and consequences involved.

7. Outline Case Studies:

The case studies (Appendix 2.) provide a diverse range of examples that illuminate the motivations, execution, and consequences of regime change interventions, spanning different historical periods and geopolitical contexts and confirm the complexities and challenges inherent in US foreign policy, particularly in regard to regime change interventions.

In 2011, U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates—member of President Barack Obama’s national security team—reminded his colleagues when debating the use of military force against the Libyan ruler Muammar al-Qaddafi, that “when you start a war you never know how it will go.” Gates’s warning regime change can unanticipated and unwelcome consequences, applies to all these cases.

Iran (1953): The CIA-led coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, which installed the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, is a seminal example of US intervention in the internal affairs of another country. This case study highlights the role of covert operations and the long-term consequences of intervention in shaping the trajectory of a nation.

Vietnam (1960s-1970s): The US intervention in Vietnam, aimed at preventing the spread of communism, serves as a cautionary tale of the limitations of military force and the unintended consequences of intervention. This case study underscores the complexities of counterinsurgency warfare and the challenges of nation-building in the context of ideological conflict.

Afghanistan (2001-present): The US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, following the September 11th attacks, aimed to dismantle the Taliban regime and eliminate the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. This case study highlights the challenges of conducting counterinsurgency operations, nation-building, and post-conflict stabilization in a complex and volatile environment. Despite initial military successes, the prolonged conflict has underscored the difficulties of achieving lasting political stability and security in Afghanistan.

Iraq (2003): The invasion of Iraq in 2003, justified on the grounds of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and promoting democracy, is a contemporary example of regime change intervention. This case study illustrates the consequences of flawed intelligence, overstated threats, and the challenges of post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction.

Libya (2011): The NATO-led intervention in Libya, aimed at protecting civilians during the Arab Spring uprising, resulted in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. However, the intervention also led to a power vacuum, internal conflict, and the proliferation of extremist groups. This case study highlights the complexities of humanitarian intervention and the unintended consequences of regime change.

Syria (2011-present): The ongoing civil war in Syria, sparked by the Arab Spring protests and exacerbated by external intervention, offers insights into the complexities of regime change dynamics in the context of a multifaceted conflict. This case study underscores the challenges of balancing humanitarian concerns, geopolitical interests, and regional stability.

Egypt (2011): The popular uprising and ousting of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt in 2011 during the Arab Spring marked a significant moment in the country’s history. The subsequent transition to democracy, with the holding of elections, raised hopes for a new era of political openness and reform.

However, the election of Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood and subsequent military intervention in 2013, leading to the rise of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, illustrates the complexities and challenges of democratization and regime change. This case study highlights the tensions between popular demands for democracy and stability, as well as the role of external actors in shaping domestic political outcomes.

Ukraine (2005-present): The Orange Revolution of 2005 marked a turning point in Ukrainian politics, leading to freer elections and the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych during the Maidan Revolution in 2014. This period raised hopes for democratic transition and closer ties with the European Union. However, tensions escalated after the 2008 Bucharest summit, where President George W. Bush advocated extending Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Ukraine, prompting Ukraine to assert itself as a bulwark for the West against Russia rather than a bridge between the two. This decision intensified the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, ultimately leading to a proxy war with global implications. The case study sheds light on the complexities of navigating geopolitical interests, the rejection of “spheres of interest,” and the role of external actors in shaping domestic political dynamics.

8. Consequences and Impacts:

The policy of foreign-imposed regime change, often accompanied by economic sanctions, has been a consistent element of American foreign policy since the country’s rise as a global power.  Particularly notable are America’s interventions in Latin America during the first third of the twentieth century, which were characterized by overt and covert actions aimed at altering governments. However, over time, the influence of these interventions has waned, leading to diminished American influence in the region. This shift has allowed for the rise of other global players, most notably China, whose influence in Latin America has been steadily increasing.

The U.S. has a history of sponsoring covert coups, such as the overthrow of South Vietnam’s leader Ngo Dinh Diem in November 1963. This event altered the course of Southeast Asia and drew the Johnson administration into prolonged involvement in the region, contributing to the ongoing geopolitical competition between China and the U.S.

Examining the various case histories, it becomes evident that each intervention has its own unique dynamics. However, there are recurring themes and patterns that emerge. Despite intentions to promote democracy or stability, these interventions have often resulted in unintended negative consequences for both the interveners and the target countries.

They have sparked nationalist grievances and fuelled backlash against American interventionism, leading to a resurgence of radical Islamic terrorism. Moreover, they have exacerbated violence and instability and have inadvertently empowered extremist groups.

The humanitarian costs of sanctions and regime change in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have been profound and enduring. These costs include civilian casualties, displacement, and the exacerbation of existing humanitarian crises.

U.S. regime change policies have also eroded trust and credibility on the international stage. The perception of American actions as self-serving and hypocritical has damaged its reputation and undermined its adherence to international law. These policies are often seen as driven by self-interest or in support of specific allies, contributing to regional instability and creating power vacuums in countries like Libya and Syria.

In conclusion, while U.S. regime change policies may be motivated by noble objectives such as promoting democracy or protecting national interests, they remain a contentious and debated aspect of foreign policy. The complex and multifaceted consequences of these interventions often extend far beyond their initial goals, leaving a legacy of regional chaos and instability in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

9. Global Perspectives, Critique, and Alternatives:

Foreign-imposed regime change operations, whether covert or overt, have a long and varied history, dating back to antiquity. Even in premodern times, leaders frequently opted to change the leadership or regime of foreign states, often through manipulation of elections, support for dissident groups, economic sanctions, or direct military intervention.

One of the greatest successes in post-World War II American foreign policy was the pacification of Germany and Japan, highlighting the potential benefits of regime change when executed effectively. However, the 2003 invasion of Iraq at great financial costs (US$ 7 trillion) stands as one of the most significant failures in U.S. foreign policy history, underscoring the catastrophic consequences that can result from misguided interventions.

The United States, often viewing itself as the indispensable nation, has engaged in a range of covert actions, proxy wars, and economic aggressions worldwide. These operations, driven by a mix of idealism, naivete, and arrogance, aim to maintain hierarchical relationships between intervening states and target governments. Despite the prevalence of covert regime change attempts, many operations fail to remain covert and can lead to unintended consequences.

A rich history of regime change operations exists across different regions, including South America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. While some interventions may have achieved short-term objectives, many have destabilized regions, created power vacuums, and associated the United States with repressive regimes and dictatorial leaders.

Research indicates that covert regime changes efforts often fail to achieve their objectives, with a majority resulting in blowback and unintended consequences. Moreover, these interventions can exacerbate civil wars, human rights violations, and regional instability, highlighting the inherent challenges of imposing a singular model of governance onto diverse societies.

The pursuit of American hegemony, characterized by a self-serving approach to international law and militaristic tactics, has transformed the United States into a destructive actor on the global stage. Instead of fostering peace and stability, U.S. actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have generated more enemies than they have defeated, causing immense civilian casualties and undermining global stability.

The global landscape has evolved into a multipolar world, with China, Russia, and their allies challenging the Western-dominated global order. This anti-hegemonic coalition opposes external meddling, coercive sanctions, and the expansion of U.S. alliances, reshaping the geopolitical landscape and necessitating a more nuanced approach to international relations.

Navigating the complexities of this multipolar world requires a strategic approach rooted in realpolitik and cooperation. Addressing global challenges such as climate change and infectious diseases demands a collaborative effort that transcends regional conflicts and prioritizes the survival and well-being of humanity.

In examining the critique and alternatives to foreign-imposed regime change, it’s imperative to consider the wisdom of Machiavelli, who argued that questions concerning how people should live will never result in universally satisfying answers. While the United States champions principles of freedom, liberty, and democracy as universal, cultural and historical contexts shape the interpretation and value of these principles differently across societies. Recognizing and accommodating these differences is essential.

Rather than resorting to regime change or sanctions initiatives, the United States should adopt a sustainable, long-term cooperative strategy for engaging with the developing world and addressing root causes of conflicts. Emphasizing diplomatic solutions over military intervention, building consensus among nations, and respecting international law and institutions are crucial steps toward promoting peace and stability globally.

While the United States may perceive itself as a beacon of democracy, freedom, and capitalism, it’s important to acknowledge its own internal challenges, inequalities, and divisions. This recognition is essential for fostering a more humble and nuanced approach to international relations, one that respects the diversity of human experiences and aspirations.

The struggle between democracy and autocracy, coupled with an insistence on ideological conformity, exacerbates global divisions and overlooks the multifaceted challenges facing our world. A confrontational, unilateral approach only injects instability into the global equilibrium, highlighting the need for a new global equilibrium rooted in less Wilsonian crusaderism and more in Kissinger-era paradigms.

While promoting human dignity, international law, and political rights is commendable, striking a balance between interests and morality in international relations remains challenging. Efforts by institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to shape governance in foreign countries often lead to unintended consequences and undermine sovereignty and self-determination.

Acknowledging and respecting the diversity of societies and their right to self-determination is paramount. Each nation has its own unique history, culture, and aspirations, and policymakers must navigate the complexities of global governance with humility and inclusivity.

The erosion of sovereignty and the assault on the principle of non-interference in the wake of conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere underscore the need to reevaluate the current rule-based order. With the rise of China and other influential nations, a more diverse and flexible system of global governance is necessary to accommodate shifting dynamics.

Renewed support for key international organizations, such as UN agencies, and greater multilateral cooperation can promote global inclusivity and address pressing global challenges. Engaging with diverse perspectives and values, particularly in the developing world, and empowering reformist leaders and movements on their own terms is essential for building a more just and peaceful world. 

WJJH-19.8.2024

As I have embarked on this journey of exploration and inquiry on the policy of foreign-imposed regime change, I am open to critically engage with the subject matter, to question assumptions, challenge narratives, and contribute to a deeper understanding of the complexities of US regime change policy and its implications for global affairs.

Diatribe: The United States has a history of regime change interventions, driven by ideological, strategic, and economic motivations. From the 19th-century Manifest Destiny to post-9/11 invasions, interventions have had complex and far-reaching consequences, fueling global instability. Case studies in Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Ukraine exemplify the challenges and unintended consequences of such policies, emphasizing the need for a cautious and comprehensive approach to international relations.

The transition to a multipolar world necessitates a shift toward diplomacy and cooperation to address global challenges. The interconnectedness of global politics underscores the significance of nuanced and inclusive approaches to regime change interventions, respecting the diversity of societies and their right to self-determination.

Appendix 1. Overview:

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (Ref.William Blume)

(* indicates successful ouster of a government)

Background: In 1953, Iran experienced a pivotal event in its history with the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in a coup orchestrated by the CIA and British intelligence.

Mossadegh had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, which threatened the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum) and the British government.

The US and UK viewed Mossadegh’s nationalist policies as a threat to Western interests and sought to restore the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to power.

Motivations:

The primary motivation for the coup was to safeguard Western control over Iran’s oil resources and prevent the spread of Soviet influence in the region.

The US and UK feared that Mossadegh’s nationalization of the oil industry could set a precedent for other countries in the region, jeopardizing Western dominance.

Additionally, Mossadegh’s neutral stance during the Cold War was seen as a liability, and there were concerns that Iran could fall into the Soviet sphere of influence.

Execution:

The coup, known as Operation Ajax, involved covert operations by the CIA and British intelligence to undermine Mossadegh’s government.

Tactics included propaganda campaigns, economic pressure, and support for opposition groups within Iran.

The coup culminated in the arrest of Mossadegh and the reinstatement of the Shah, who subsequently consolidated power with US and UK support.

Consequences:

The coup installed the Shah as an authoritarian ruler, leading to decades of repressive and corrupt governance in Iran.

The Shah’s regime relied heavily on US support, which fuelled resentment among the Iranian population and contributed to anti-American sentiment.

The coup also undermined Iran’s fledgling democracy and set the stage for the Islamic Revolution in 1979, which overthrew the Shah and established an Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini.

Key Takeaways:

The coup in Iran highlights the role of Western powers in shaping political outcomes in other countries to serve their own interests. The short-term gains of securing Western control over Iran’s oil industry were outweighed by the long-term consequences of destabilizing the region and fuelling anti-Western sentiment.

This case study illustrates the complexities and consequences of regime change interventions, emphasizing the far-reaching impacts of such actions on the political, social, and economic dynamics of the targeted country and the broader region.

Appendix 2.2. Case Study: Vietnam (1960s-1970s)

Background:

The US intervention in Vietnam occurred against the backdrop of the Cold War and the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.

The conflict in Vietnam originated from the struggle for independence from French colonial rule, which led to the division of Vietnam into communist-led North Vietnam and pro-Western South Vietnam.

Motivations:

The primary motivation for US intervention in Vietnam was to prevent the spread of communism in Southeast Asia and uphold the policy of containment.

The US viewed Vietnam as a crucial battleground in the global struggle against communism and sought to support the South Vietnamese government in resisting communist insurgency.

Execution:

The US gradually escalated its involvement in Vietnam, starting with military advisors and escalating to full-scale intervention with ground troops and aerial bombardment.

The strategy of “winning hearts and minds” aimed to bolster support for the South Vietnamese government and undermine the communist insurgency led by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces.

However, the US military faced significant challenges, including guerrilla tactics, a lack of popular support in South Vietnam, and logistical difficulties in the rugged terrain.

Consequences:

The Vietnam War resulted in immense human suffering, with millions of Vietnamese civilians and soldiers killed or wounded, along with significant casualties among US and allied forces.

The war deeply divided American society and led to widespread protests and social unrest, challenging the legitimacy of US intervention and the government’s handling of the conflict.

Despite massive military expenditures and efforts to prop up the South Vietnamese government, the US ultimately withdrew its forces in 1973, leading to the fall of Saigon to North Vietnamese forces in 1975 and the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule.

Key Takeaways:

The Vietnam War represents a stark example of the limitations of military force and the challenges of counterinsurgency warfare.

The conflict underscored the importance of understanding local dynamics and historical contexts in interventionist policies, as well as the risks of mission creep and unintended consequences.

The Vietnam War remains a defining chapter in US history and international relations, shaping subsequent debates about military intervention, foreign policy, and the use of force.

Appendix 2.3. Case Study: Afghanistan (2001-Present)

Background:

The US intervention in Afghanistan followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which were orchestrated by the al-Qaeda terrorist network harboured by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The invasion aimed to oust the Taliban from power, dismantle al-Qaeda, and prevent Afghanistan from serving as a safe haven for terrorist organizations.

Motivations:

The primary motivation for the US intervention was retaliation for the 9/11 attacks and the need to eliminate the terrorist threat posed by al-Qaeda.

The Taliban’s refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden and dismantle al-Qaeda’s infrastructure in Afghanistan further escalated tensions and prompted military action.

Execution:

The US-led invasion of Afghanistan began in October 2001, with a coalition of forces targeting Taliban and al-Qaeda strongholds across the country.

The initial military campaign, Operation Enduring Freedom, utilized airstrikes, special operations forces, and support for anti-Taliban Afghan factions to overthrow the Taliban regime.

Subsequent efforts focused on stabilizing Afghanistan, rebuilding infrastructure, and establishing a democratic government under the leadership of President Hamid Karzai.

Consequences:

The US-led intervention in Afghanistan led to the ousting of the Taliban regime and the dismantling of al-Qaeda’s operational capabilities in the country.

However, the subsequent nation-building efforts faced significant challenges, including ongoing insurgency from Taliban remnants, corruption, governance issues, and the resurgence of terrorist groups.

The conflict in Afghanistan has resulted in significant human casualties, including civilians, Afghan security forces, and coalition troops, as well as massive displacement and humanitarian crises.

Despite nearly two decades of military involvement and nation-building efforts, Afghanistan remains mired in conflict, with no clear resolution in sight.

Key Takeaways:

The case of Afghanistan highlights the complexities and challenges of military intervention and nation-building in a volatile and fractured state.

The initial military success in ousting the Taliban regime did not translate into long-term stability and security, underscoring the limitations of military force in addressing underlying political, social, and economic issues.

The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan serves as a cautionary tale about the risks and unintended consequences of interventionist policies, as well as the need for comprehensive and sustainable approaches to addressing complex security challenges.

The case of Afghanistan provides valuable insights into the complexities of military intervention and nation-building efforts, as well as the enduring challenges of conflict resolution and peacebuilding in a fractured state.

Appendix 2.4. Case Study: Iraq (2003)

Background:

The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a pivotal event in international relations and marked the culmination of years of tension between Iraq and the Western powers, particularly the United States.

The invasion followed years of international sanctions, weapons inspections, and accusations against the Iraqi government of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and supporting terrorism.

Motivations:

The primary motivation for the US intervention in Iraq was to eliminate the perceived threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime and its alleged pursuit of WMDs.

The aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks heightened concerns about state sponsorship of terrorism and the potential for rogue regimes to acquire and use WMDs, leading to increased pressure on Iraq to comply with international demands.

Connection to Afghanistan:

The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 can be traced back to earlier US interventions in the region, including support for Afghan mujahideen fighters during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s.

The support provided by the US and other Western powers to Afghan resistance fighters, including Osama bin Laden, during the Soviet occupation inadvertently contributed to the rise of militant Islamist groups and laid the groundwork for subsequent conflicts and terrorist activities.

Bin Laden’s experiences in Afghanistan and his grievances against US foreign policy in the Middle East culminated in the 9/11 attacks, which prompted the US to launch its “War on Terror.”

The events of 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror influenced US foreign policy and provided a rationale for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with the Bush administration justifying the invasion based on allegations of Iraq’s links to terrorism and possession of WMDs.

Execution:

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 involved a coalition of US and allied forces conducting a rapid military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime and establish a new government.

The invasion was characterized by a combination of conventional military operations, precision airstrikes, and special operations targeting key Iraqi leadership and infrastructure.

Consequences:

The US-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation led to significant human suffering, including civilian casualties, displacement, and sectarian violence.

The failure to find WMDs in Iraq undermined the credibility of the Bush administration’s justification for the invasion and fuelled criticism of US foreign policy.

The power vacuum created by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime contributed to instability and sectarian conflict in Iraq, paving the way for the rise of extremist groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq (later ISIS).

The invasion of Iraq also strained relations between the US and its allies, sparked anti-war protests globally, and raised questions about the legality and morality of pre-emptive military action.

Key Takeaways:

The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 illustrates the complexities and consequences of pre-emptive military action and regime change interventions.

The connection between the proxy war in Afghanistan, the events of 9/11, and the invasion of Iraq underscores the interconnectedness of US foreign policy decisions and their far-reaching impacts.

Appendix 2.5. Case Study: Libya (2011)

Background:

The US-led intervention in Libya in 2011 was part of a broader international effort to support the Libyan opposition and protect civilians from government-led violence during the Arab Spring uprisings.

The uprising against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi was fuelled by longstanding grievances against his authoritarian rule, corruption, and human rights abuses.

Motivations:

The primary motivation for the US intervention in Libya was to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and support the aspirations of the Libyan people for freedom, democracy, and human rights.

The Gaddafi regime’s violent crackdown on protesters and the potential for widespread atrocities prompted international calls for action, including the imposition of a no-fly zone and targeted airstrikes to protect civilians.

Execution:

The US, along with NATO allies and regional partners, launched Operation Unified Protector in March 2011 to enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians from government forces.

The military campaign involved airstrikes targeting Gaddafi’s military infrastructure and command-and-control centers, as well as support for opposition forces on the ground.

The intervention ultimately led to the downfall of the Gaddafi regime, with Gaddafi himself captured and killed by opposition forces in October 2011.

Consequences:

The overthrow of the Gaddafi regime plunged Libya into a protracted period of instability and conflict, marked by political fragmentation, militia violence, and the proliferation of armed groups.

The power vacuum created by Gaddafi’s ouster allowed extremist groups, including ISIS, to gain a foothold in Libya and exploit the chaos for their own agendas.

The failure to establish effective governance and security structures in post-Gaddafi Libya has contributed to ongoing violence, human rights abuses, and the displacement of populations.

The US-led intervention in Libya has been criticized for its role in exacerbating the country’s instability and contributing to the humanitarian crisis, as well as the lack of a comprehensive plan for post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization.

Key Takeaways:

The case of Libya highlights the challenges and complexities of interventionist policies aimed at protecting civilians and promoting democratic change in authoritarian regimes.

The intervention’s short-term objectives of preventing a humanitarian catastrophe were achieved, but the lack of a coherent strategy for post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction contributed to Libya’s descent into chaos.

The case also underscores the importance of comprehensive and coordinated international efforts to address the root causes of conflict and support sustainable peacebuilding and development.

The case of Libya offers valuable insights into the complexities and consequences of military intervention and regime change efforts in the context of the Arab Spring uprisings.

Appendix 2.6. Case Study: Syria (2011)

The Syrian conflict, which emerged in 2011 amidst the broader wave of protests known as the Arab Spring, has evolved into one of the most intricate and devastating humanitarian crises of the 21st century.

This conflict has given rise to widespread violence, displacement, and humanitarian suffering, with profound implications for Syria and the broader region.

Background:

The roots of the Syrian conflict lie in longstanding grievances, including regional power dynamics stemming from the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the dispute over the Golan Heights. Additionally, Syria’s alignment with Hezbollah and support for the Palestinian cause have brought it into direct conflict with US security interests in the region.

The Middle East has historically attracted involvement from various international actors, including regional powers such as Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, as well as global powers like the United States, Russia, and European countries. These actors pursued divergent interests and agendas, with the United States and others attempting to remove Assad by supporting opposition rebels, while Russia and Iran were determined to keep Assad in power.

From 2010 onwards, internal political tensions within Syria, fueled by grievances against the authoritarian regime of President Bashar al-Assad, including political repression, economic inequality, and human rights abuses, came to the forefront. Protests initially began peacefully but escalated into a catastrophic full-scale civil war as the regime responded with violence and repression.

The attempt by the United States and others to remove Assad by supporting opposition rebels, while understandable, proved catastrophic. President Obama’s call for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in August 2011, similar to his stance on Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi, closed the door to negotiations and escalated tensions. Regime change efforts have a tendency to escalate conflicts, as seen in cases like Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

President Barack Obama’s failure to enforce his own red lines regarding the use of chemical weapons in August 2012 further complicated the situation. The decision to seek authorization for the use of force from Congress, influenced by opposition from Republicans and public opinion, had geopolitical consequences, as seen during the 2014 Ukraine conflict.

Consequences:

Years of outside military assistance to the fragmented Syrian opposition failed to achieve the intended ouster of Assad but instead led to a counter-escalation by his regime and its foreign sponsors. This fueled a vicious civil war and a humanitarian tragedy, with civilians bearing the brunt of the violence. The conflict caused refugee flows on a scale not seen since World War II, exacerbating nationalist and populist sentiments in Europe and fueling jihadi extremism.

The desire to overthrow Assad and the consequences of trying and failing to do so, combined with the reluctance to invade and occupy Syria, proved to be worse than not intervening at all. However, a diplomatic opportunity arose when Russia brokered an agreement for the removal of chemical weapons from Syria under international supervision, which was certified by the UN in June 2014. Extremist groups exploited this decision to gain a foothold by promising protection from the Assad regime.

Despite numerous diplomatic efforts and peace initiatives, including the Geneva peace talks and the Astana process, a comprehensive resolution to the Syrian conflict remains elusive. The involvement of multiple stakeholders with divergent interests, coupled with the entrenched positions of the Assad regime and opposition groups, has hindered progress towards a political settlement.

Key Takeaways:

The Syrian conflict has had far-reaching implications for regional stability and global security, fuelling the rise of extremist groups, destabilizing neighboring countries, and contributing to the largest refugee crisis since World War II. The failure of the international community, particularly the Obama administration, to effectively address the crisis, undermined efforts to contain extremist groups and stabilize the region. The Syrian case underscores the challenges and unintended consequences of regime change efforts, highlighting the need for careful consideration of geopolitical dynamics and long-term consequences in such interventions.

Appendix 1.7. Case Study: Egypt 2011

Events surrounding the Arab Spring in 2011 and its aftermath.

In Egypt, the Arab Spring uprising began in January 2011, driven by widespread dissatisfaction with the autocratic rule of President Hosni Mubarak and fuelled by grievances related to political repression, economic inequality, and corruption. The protests, which originated in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, quickly spread across the country, culminating in Mubarak’s resignation in February 2011 after nearly 30 years in power.

The fall of Mubarak’s regime was initially hailed as a victory for democracy and popular uprising. However, the transition to democracy in Egypt was tumultuous and marked by political instability, polarization, and violence. The military, which had long been a dominant force in Egyptian politics, assumed temporary control of the country and oversaw a transition process that was criticized for being opaque and undemocratic.

In June 2012, Egypt held its first democratic presidential election, which resulted in the victory of Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a long-standing Islamist political organization. Morsi’s presidency, however, was marred by controversy and polarization. His government faced accusations of authoritarianism, attempts to consolidate power, and failure to address pressing economic and social issues.

In July 2013, amid mass protests against his rule, Morsi was ousted by the Egyptian military in a coup d’état led by then-Defence Minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. The military’s intervention was supported by many Egyptians who were disillusioned with Morsi’s leadership and alarmed by the perceived Islamist agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Following the coup, el-Sisi assumed power as interim president and later won the presidential election in 2014 and subsequent elections, consolidating his rule and cracking down on dissent. Under el-Sisi’s leadership, Egypt has experienced a significant erosion of civil liberties, crackdown on political opposition, and suppression of free speech and media freedom.

The events in Egypt since the Arab Spring illustrate the complexities and challenges of political transition and democratization in the region. While the uprising initially raised hopes for democratic change, the subsequent power struggles and military intervention highlighted the fragility of democratic institutions and the persistence of authoritarianism.

From a Western perspective, the response to the events in Egypt was mixed. While some Western governments expressed support for the aspirations of the Egyptian people for democracy and human rights, others were cautious in their approach, prioritizing stability and security concerns. The United States, for example, faced criticism for its perceived ambivalence and inconsistency in its response to the Egyptian revolution and subsequent events.

Overall, the case of Egypt underscores the difficulty of achieving democratic transition in contexts marked by entrenched authoritarianism, political polarization, and external interference. It highlights the need for comprehensive and inclusive processes of political reform, respect for human rights, and support for civil society and democratic institutions to foster sustainable democratic governance.

Appendix 1.8. Case Study: Ukraine (2005-present)

Since Ukraine’s declaration of independence in 1991, the seeds of conflict have been sown, culminating in the events witnessed in recent years. The trajectory towards conflict became inevitable when Ukraine opted, to align itself with the West rather than maintaining its status as a bridge between Russia and Europe. This positioned Ukraine within the larger geopolitical competition between the U.S. and China in the Eurasian region.

The annexations of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions by Russia blatantly violate international law and serve as a testament to the intricate web of geopolitical interests, the rejection of “spheres of interest,” and the influence of external actors in shaping domestic politics. The conflict since 2014 has unleashed violence, displacement, and humanitarian suffering on a significant scale, with profound implications for Ukraine and global stability.

Background:

The roots of the Ukraine conflict delve deep into history, influenced by centuries of political, cultural, and ethnic dynamics. The ancient origins of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus trace back to the Kievan Rus in the ninth century. During the Mongol occupation, Ukraine experienced division, with the southern and western principalities aligning with Poland and Lithuania, while the Russian northeast formed the nucleus of Muscovy. The decline of the Mongol empire marked the rise of the Romanov dynasty, shaping the autocratic governance of the Russian empire. Ukraine remained under Russian control, enduring Russification policies aimed at suppressing Ukrainian language and culture. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked Ukraine’s declaration of independence, a significant turning point.

Ukraine’s declaration of state sovereignty of 1 July 1990 declared the country’s ‘intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs,’  however, with the eventual Ukrainian accession to the EU and NATO and part of European security structures, Ukraine became a outpost against Russia, with serious consequences for Pan-European security.

The antagonistic relationship between the U.S. and Russia traces back to the influence of George F. Kennan and his doctrine of containment. Kennan advocated for containing Soviet power, endorsing military encirclement, and discouraging cooperation, laying the groundwork for decades of geopolitical tension. The Truman Doctrine of containment formalized U.S. efforts to contain communism, shaping the course of American-Russian relations.

The US-Russian relationship was further burdened by President George W. Bush “multilaterism a la carte,” with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and ceasing to recognize one of the most fundamental geopolitical concepts “spheres of interests” -the ability of other powers to demand deference from other states in their own sphere- in favour of American hegemony. 

Consequences:

Ukraine’s quest for sovereignty and independence has been met with internal and external challenges, exacerbated by its geopolitical orientation. Tensions between the western and eastern regions of Ukraine have simmered for years, with the Orange Revolution of 2005 serving as a pivotal moment.

George W. Bush advocating extending Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Ukraine and Georgia at the 2008 Bucharest summit, can be seen as contributing to the current proxy battlefield in Ukraine.

The Euromaidan protests of 2013-2014, triggered by President Yanukovych’s rejection of an association agreement with the EU, led to his ousting and the instalment of a pro-Western government. This marked a turning point, intensifying tensions with Russia.

The subsequent annexation of Crimea and the Donbas region by Russia escalated the conflict, resulting in a proxy war with global implications. The crisis underscores the broader struggle for global hegemony, with the U.S., Russia, and China vying for influence. The war in Ukraine reflects the shifting geopolitical landscape, signalling the dawn of a new Cold War era.

Key Takeaways:

The conflict in Ukraine represents a critical juncture in modern history, reflecting the struggle for global hegemony and the expansion of U.S. influence. The dissolution of the Soviet Union paved the way for American global hegemony, with Ukraine’s independence in 1991 marking a significant milestone. However, the conflict has revealed the limitations of American power and the complexities of geopolitical competition.

Efforts to contain Russia through sanctions and military assistance to Ukraine have failed to achieve desired outcomes, prolonging the conflict and exacerbating humanitarian crises. The conflict has fuelled nationalist sentiments in Europe and contributed to the rise of extremism, underscoring the unintended consequences of interventionist policies.