When one country covertly supports a revolution or coup in another, it is engaging in regime change. Such policies are often motivated by parochial interests like protecting US businesses or preserving human rights, but the resulting power vacuums and instability tend to undermine those goals.
There is a pervasive narrative that regime change is an inevitable part of the democratic path for any country, but that belief ignores how dangerous and difficult it can be to overthrow governments – especially when a new government arrives on the scene with its own interests in mind. The example of the overthrows of German and Japanese dictatorships notwithstanding, there is a strong record that successful regime change requires careful planning, multilateral support, and a population in the target country ready to embrace change. Without these conditions, armed interventions may lead to power vacuums, violence, and unintended consequences.
As a result, it is important for policymakers to understand the scholarly consensus that regime-change missions rarely deliver on their promised benefits. To do so, they should read a wide variety of studies on the subject.
Some might argue that the regime in question, whether the Mugabe government in Zimbabwe or the Maduro administration in Venezuela, is corrupt and does harm to its citizens, and that if it were to go, a more benign alternative would emerge. But that is not a sufficient rationale to engage in covert regime change. Foreign polities prioritize their own interests, and a regime change may produce more costs than benefits for America’s interests in the long term.