An Analysis of Generic Strategies of America’s Regime Change Operations
If America views the government of a faraway country as a security danger, it may undertake regime change to eliminate or diminish that threat. This could be because of fears about the country’s nuclear program, terrorist support, or regional instability.
Dhaka: America has a long history of trying to overthrow governments abroad. The American administration has employed a number of tactics to overthrow governments that it views as being incompatible with its objectives, starting with Iran in 1953 till today. These tactics have included military intervention, economic sanctions, clandestine activities, and diplomatic pressure. In this post, I will review American regime change tactics used in many nations and look at general implementation tactics. We will examine the goals of these initiatives as well as the methods and strategies employed.
Why America leads Regime Changes?
While it is critical to acknowledge that geopolitical objectives can be complicated and multidimensional, some prevalent narratives for America and the West’s regime change policies include:
1. Geopolitical Interests: Gaining access to important resources, creating military bases for strategic positioning, or combating the impact of other nations are among reasons for establishing military bases. Like the regime transition in Panama in 1989, when America invaded the country with the objective of deposing General Manuel Noriega for his increasingly assertive posture towards America. Following the invasion, a new government was formed that was perceived to be more favourable and compliant to American interests.
2. National Security Concerns: If America views the government of a faraway country as a security danger, it may undertake regime change to eliminate or diminish that threat. This could be because of fears about the country’s nuclear program, terrorist support, or regional instability.
3. Promotion of Western democratic and liberal values as well as ‘Human Rights’: America works to bring about regime change in some countries in order to uphold Western democratic and liberal values and strategic human rights. According to the American narrative, autocratic or oppressive countries are impediments to “global peace and stability.” That is how America, which led the way west, sees the world. The American and European governments supported the Serbian opposition’s efforts to depose Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. This included aiding independent media outlets as well as giving opposition groups financial and logistical help. Ultimately, an election resulted in Milosevic’s demise.
4. Economic Interests: America also seeks regime change in order to open up new economic opportunities and markets in a distant country or to safeguard its economic interests in the region. America creates a more favourable environment for commerce and investment by deposing a government viewed as unfriendly to its economic interests. Gaining access to rich resources, opening up new markets for its goods and services, or negotiating favourable trade deals are all examples of this.
Throughout history, there have been numerous occurrences in which economic factors have influenced America’s decision to engage in regime change in a foreign nation. In 1954, America orchestrated a coup d’état in Guatemala with the objective of overthrowing the democratically elected government and subsequently establishing a military dictatorship. That action was undertaken as a reaction to the land reform policies implemented by the Guatemalan government, which posed a threat to the vested interests of the United Fruit Company, an American corporation that held substantial investments within Guatemala.
5. Humanitarian Concerns: An American allegation of widespread human rights violations or humanitarian crisis in a country may lead to the start of a regime change operation under the pretext of to solving it.
The Harrowing Journey of American Regime Change Strategy
1. Germany, 1945
2. Japan, 1945
3. Syria, 1949
4. South Korea, 1953
5. Iran, 1953
6. Guatemala, 1954
7. Congo, 1960
8. Laos, 1960
9. Iraq, 1963
10. Brazil, 1964
11. British Guiana, 1964
12. Bolivia, 1964
13. Dominican Republic, 1965
14. Indonesia, 1965
15. Ghana, 1966
16. Greece, 1967
17. Cambodia, 1970
18. Bolivia, 1971
19. Chile, 1973
20. Australia, 1975
21. Portugal, 1976
22. Argentina, 1976
23. Jamaica, 1980
24. Turkey, 1980
25. Chad, 1982
26. Fiji, 1987
27. Nicaragua, 1987
28. Afghanistan, 1989
29. Panama, 1989
30. Bulgaria, 1990
31. Albania, 1991
32. Yugoslavia, 2000
33. Ecuador, 2000
34. Afghanistan, 2001
35. Venezuela, 2002
36. Iraq, 2003
37. Haiti, 2004
38. Libya, 2011
And more…
Since the end of World War II, America-engineered regime change operations and regional wars have taken the lives of an estimated 20 million people.
Analysing the general format of the regime change of America
America uses these regime change activities (in the Chart below) individually, in groups, or combined, with different levels of effort for different outcomes.
A) Aggravation of political strife and destabilization of domestic politics by enabling opposition
There are many ways for America to make it easier for the opposition in a low- or middle-income country to cause more political strife and make the country’s politics less stable. Some of these ways are giving opposition groups money, supplies, or military help.
These strategies can work by dividing society and making conflicts worse, which makes it harder for the government to keep things under control. By helping groups that are against the government, America helps them get more influence and power, which could lead to a change in government.
Here are some examples:
In 1953, America and Britain worked together to get rid of Mohammad Mosaddegh’s government in Iran and put the Shah of Iran in power as an American stooge. America helped the opposition National Front party with money and supplies, and it also used its power with the Shah to get him to fire Mosaddegh.
In 1954, it backed a coup in Guatemala that overthrew the government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán and put in place a military dictatorship. America helped the opposition Liberation Army with money and supplies, and it also put pressure on the Guatemalan troops to get rid of President Arbenz.
In Nicaragua in the 1980s, America helped the Contras, a rebel group that fought against the Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega. America gave the Contras money and helped them get supplies.
B) Imposing economic sanctions as a tool to influence the behaviour of a regime
Economic sanctions are limitations on trade or financial activities imposed by one or more countries on another country or group of countries. They can be used to achieve a range of foreign policy objectives, including influencing a regime’s behaviour.
America employs economic sanctions to influence the behaviour of a dictatorship by attacking important economic people within the regime. This includes putting sanctions on persons, corporations, or sectors critical to the regime’s economic stability and power. America exerts pressure on these economic players and, by implication, the regime itself by denying their access to foreign markets and banking institutions.
America takes the initial step in identifying the targeted regime’s economic vulnerabilities. Because, understanding the important sectors of the economy, major economic players, and the regime’s reliance on specific imports or exports are required to attack economically.
America then imposes targeted sanctions on specific economic actors with significant ties to the regime. This includes freezing their assets, limiting their access to international financial markets, and prohibiting commerce with these individuals or entities.
If the targeted government is largely reliant on imports of crucial items, America applies a blockade or embargo to limit access to critical resources, commodities, or technologies. This strategy can put pressure on the regime to shift course.
Creating and leading an international coalition to apply sanctions can boost their effectiveness. By enlisting the help of other countries, America establishes a more substantial economic front against the targeted dictatorship.
Furthermore, America employs graduated sanctions, which allow it to gradually increase the intensity of sanctions, giving the targeted government opportunities to review its actions and change its behaviour.
At the same time, America provides incentives to the dictatorship if it changes its course of conduct. These incentives could include financial assistance, diplomatic recognition, or membership in international organizations.
Pairing economic measures with diplomatic pressure through diplomatic channels, public comments, and international forums might boost the strategy’s efficacy. Therefore, it is critical for America to constantly examine the situation and its impact. If the targeted regime shows evidence of changing direction, America may consider reducing or lifting some penalties in order to encourage further positive change.
There have been various occasions when America put economic penalties on other countries in order to influence their behaviour. Here are some examples of countries where this has occurred:
Iran: On the pretext of responding to its nuclear program and backing for terrorist organizations, the America has imposed economic sanctions on Iran. These sanctions have targeted critical sections of the Iranian economy, such as the oil and finance sectors.
North Korea: In response to its nuclear weapons program and ‘human rights’ violations, America and other countries have imposed economic restrictions on North Korea. These sanctions have targeted important North Korean industry and persons.
Russia: In reaction to the conflict in Ukraine, America with some pro-American countries imposed economic sanctions on Russia. These sanctions have targeted critical sectors of the Russian economy, including energy and finance.
C) Handling media to shape public opinion in favour of the opposition and against the government
In a low- or middle-income country, America uses the media to sway public opinion in favour of the opposition and against the government. The media is the most potent tool for influencing political outcomes and changing public opinion. America can build a narrative that helps the opposition while undermining the legitimacy of the administration by offering favourable coverage of opposition groups and negative coverage of the government.
America achieves this purpose through media by providing cash or other support to media entities favourable to the opposition. This can involve financial support for independent media outlets or assistance in the formation of new media outlets affiliated with the opposition. America assists these media outlets in producing more content and reaching a larger audience by providing funding and support, as well as amplifying the message and ensuring it reaches a large audience through the use of sophisticated techniques such as bots and phoney accounts.
This phenomenon is also known as “information warfare” or “information manipulation.” Therefore, funding opposition media, propaganda and disinformation, hacking and cyber operations, social media manipulation, and media ownership are examples of such practises.
There have been allegations of America meddling in Venezuela’s media landscape, with the government saying that America has funded and supported opposition media outlets. Several Middle Eastern countries have faced domestic power struggles for American media meddling aimed at affecting internal politics and promote opposition movements.
D) Influencing media to popularize hatred towards a target regime and demonize it
America uses all sort of media to popularize hatred towards a target regime and demonize it in the eyes of the public.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs): Early in the new millennium, America and some of its allies misrepresented Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq as having WMDs. In 2003, this story played a significant role in increasing public support for the Iraq War.
Libya and Gaddafi Regime: Western media outlets, particularly those controlled by Americans, painted a very poor picture of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s rule in Libya during the Arab Spring of 2011.
Even while there were legitimate complaints about the administration, western media frequently exaggerated the idea of a ruthless dictatorship, which aided in the international involvement and regime change in Libya.
Iran and the Islamic Republic: The Western media has heavily vilified Iran, notably in relation to its nuclear programme and regional actions. American media operations have frequently presented Iran’s leadership as a threat to regional stability and in an unfavourable light.
Venezuela and President Maduro’s Government: Venezuela has been under scrutiny and criticism in the American media, with charges of dictatorship and economic mismanagement. American and European media narratives have blamed President Nicolás Maduro’s regime for the country’s economic problems.
North Korea and Kim Regime: Western media has presented North Korea as an isolated and authoritarian dictatorship, with an emphasis on its nuclear programme and ‘human rights’ violations.
E) Unleashing security threats aimed at the armed forces of a target regime
America strives to increase overall security risks aimed against a target regime’s armed forces in order to persuade armed forces to support public uprisings. This can be accomplished through a variety of tactics, such as sponsoring violent or armed opposition organisations, conducting covert operations to destabilise the security situation, or providing intelligence and logistical support to the opposition leadership.
There are instances where America creates a situation in which the target regime’s military forces are stretched thin and under heightened pressure. This causes schisms within the military and encourages some elements to defect or join the opposition. In some circumstances, this can result in the military playing a critical role in assisting public uprisings and promoting a change in administration.
Examples include:
Syrian Civil War: During the Syrian civil war, America supplied support to opposition parties, resulting in defection and a sovereignty disorder.
Afghanistan Conflict: America supported anti-Soviet mujahideen groups during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s,, aiming to weaken the Soviet military presence that had been supporting the regime.
Ukraine Crisis: In the aftermath of the regime change in Ukraine in 2014, America holed into the Ukraine crisis and enlarging it to a protracted war between Russia and Ukraine.
Arab Spring: During the Arab Spring of 2011, America provided support to a variety of opposition groups in the Middle East, assisting in the overthrow of several regimes and heightening security risks to those military forces.
Arab Spring: During the Arab Spring of 2011, America provided support to a variety of opposition groups in the Middle East, assisting in the overthrow of several regimes and heightening security risks to those military forces.
F) Staging an environment for the regime negotiate to surrender or flee the country
America puts pressure on a regime change target to negotiate surrender or flee the nation. It achieves this through a variety of measures, including as diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and the threat of military action. It creates a situation in which the targeted government is under intense pressure and may believe its alternatives are limited. In rare situations, this can result in negotiations in which the government agrees to resign or leave the nation in exchange for specific concessions or guarantees. This can be viewed as a method of bringing about regime change without resorting to violence or military action.
In the past, America has put pressure on governments designated for regime change to negotiate surrender or leave the country. Here are a few examples:
America led a Western effort in 1994 to put pressure on Haiti’s military government to step down and allow the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, to return to office. This included diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and the threat of military involvement. The military administration eventually agreed to step down, and Aristide was restored to power.
During the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011, Western countries led by America placed diplomatic pressure on Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down and allow for a power transition. After months of talks and rising violence, Saleh consented to depart the nation, and a transitional administration was formed.
End thoughts
When it suits American interests (strategic, economic, or ideological), it changes governments. However, Western countries led by America frequently misjudge the gravity of the dangers posed by attempting regime change in many nations. Therefore, inciting hatred or demonization for a regime change is counterproductive to healthy international relations, which should instead place an emphasis on discussion, diplomacy, and peaceful conflict resolution.
Written by Rajeev Ahmed
Geopolitcal Analyst, Strategic Thinker and the Editor at geopolits.com
