As the crisis in Venezuela unfolds, many Americans have wondered whether the Trump administration is seeking regime change. Although President Trump has not directly endorsed such a policy, his rhetoric and actions have led some to think otherwise.
Regime change refers to the practice of one country covertly or overtly intervening in another with the aim of replacing its government. This can take the form of backing military coups, putting pressure on politicians or parties to leave office, or overthrowing governments through direct intervention. Previous efforts since World War II – including the US’s 1953 coup in Iran, which sowed seeds for today’s extremism – offer no examples of clear success, several catastrophic failures, and a track record in which costs were higher, benefits fewer, and results less predictable than proponents promised.
Aside from the strategic risks, forcible regime change is rarely a wise economic choice. It forces the intervener into lengthy nation-building projects that can ensnare it in costly, long-term conflicts and squander resources. It also puts the imposed leader in an uncomfortable position: They must please both their external patron and domestic audience, and doing what pleases one alienates the other.
The most successful US regime change interventions, according to research by Boston College professor Meghan O’Rourke, involve strong local institutions that encourage stability during the transition to democracy. Unlike the countries where the Trump administration would love to see regime change, Venezuela and North Korea lack such institutions. As a result, achieving political change in those countries will be harder than in Germany and Japan, when the United States helped democracy take hold after World War II. In fact, the best option in most cases looks like what George Kennan outlined almost 75 years ago: “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment.”