The consequences of forcing regime change
Meddling in the affairs of ‘sovereign’ nations has long been a tenet of American foreign policy. The US engages in military interventions and intelligence operations throughout the Global South to prevent unfavourable or anti-US governments from coming to power. According to Dionysis Markakis in his book US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: The Pursuit of Hegemony, this is integral to expanding and maintaining US global dominance. Countries that attempt to resist forceful integration into America’s political orbit are made into international pariahs, have their institutions destabilised, and their people starved and deprived of basic necessities.
Recent interventions in Latin America and the Middle East are consistent with historical trends. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was kidnapped in January and imprisoned in New York, after which the US began taking control of the country’s oil reserves. Cuba is actively facing a crisis caused by a US fuel embargo, which the Trump administration has said is intended to oust the current government. Most recently, America and Israel initiated attacks on Iran and killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, while simultaneously targeting civilians and infrastructure. These were launched after the Iranian regime murdered over 30 000 civilians protesting the repressive and fundamentalist government. The US government has justified the attacks by citing Iran’s nuclear activities (without evidence, according to the New York Times) and emphasising the need for regime change. On February 28, Trump posted on the alt-tech news platform Truth Social that the US’ intentions were “to destroy [Iran’s] missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground.” Less than two weeks later, on March 6, Trump played king maker and intended to make “the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s)” given Iran’s surrender. These intentions are called into question, however, when considering the history of American involvement in Iran and their role in enabling the current regime’s rise to power.
Iran experts such as Ervand Abrahamian have highlighted the impact of US interventionism and Western capitalism in increasing the power of religious fundamentalists and paving the path for the repressive regime that America now seems so eager to topple. In his book titled The Cold War: A World History, Odd Arne Westad traces this back to US-Soviet geopolitics and control over resources. A major turning point was 1953, when US and British intelligence agencies orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh’s attempt to nationalise Iran’s oil reserves had threatened Western economic interests and prompted fears in Washington that Iran could drift toward Soviet and communist influence.
The coup restored the Western-backed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose rule was supported by the United States for over two decades. The Shah’s repressive regime was characterized by the suppression of dissent, high levels of corruption, and a rising cost of living that left Iranians struggling. This had massive repercussions, as anti-imperialist and anti-West sentiment grew in response. Additionally, Westad suggests that America’s targeting of leftist groups in Iran disempowered them to the advantage of the clergy, contributing to the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought Ruhollah Khomeini to power.
Similar events have unfolded all across the Global South, including in Guatemala, Syria, Iraq, and Cambodia. Since the advent of the Cold War, the US is confirmed to have been involved in over 60 such cases of regime change. The rhetoric is consistent across current and historical cases: democratisation, anti-communism, and US economic interests are cited as rationales for violating international principles of self-determination. And although Trump might be the current face of American aggression, intervention is a bipartisan endeavour. Take Obama’s actions in Libya in 2011, for example, after which the country became widely designated a “failed state.” This too, is common for nations that America ‘saves’ from their own governments: they become internally unstable, dependent on the US, or controlled by puppet or repressive leaders. Researchers such as Alexander B. Downes and Jonathan Monten have argued that forced regime change is simply not conducive to democratisation, a claim that historical evidence supports.None of this negates the brutality or the human rights violations of the Iranian regime or any other repressive government. But the historically demonstrated ineffectiveness of US tactics raises concerns about the effects of the ongoing crisis. Middle East scholar Vali Nasr recently discussed how the new leadership’s actions may be more extreme than Khameinei’s. The regime has not changed, despite the destruction faced by Iranians in recent months, and there is little evidence to suggest that this intervention will be any different from the others.
