America had a history of isolationism prior to World War I and World War II, but the country has become increasingly more involved in foreign affairs since these two wars.  Regime change has become a commonly used tactic by the United States to put in place foreign leaders, which America favors for financial and political gains.  Continually regime change has failed to be a successful operation and has left many countries in hostile environments.  The failures of regime change can be seen in countries such as Iran, South Vietnam, Guatemala, Chile, and Iraq.  America's excess use of regime change in countries has lead to resent towards western culture and has helped lead to the rise of groups like the Islamic State.  Many say that regime change is a genuine attempt to better a country when it may not know that it is in trouble or unable to help itself.  While, countries may have good intentions when staging regime changes they have to realize from past experiences that regime changes are going to go onto to fail and leave countries in a worse state than previously.  A solution that avoids regime change needs to be established so future countries do not follow the steps of previous nations.  

America's first involvement in regime change can be traced back to the Iranian coup of 1953.  The United States and United Kingdom staged a coup d'etat where the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, was taken out of power and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was put in place to serve as a monarch.  The CIA helped stage this coup because they believed Iran to susceptible to be overtaken by the Soviet Union (Stuster).  However, as Prime Minister Mosaddegh began to nationalize the Iranian oil industry, which was previously ran by British owned companies (Zahrani 93).  Once Pahlavi was put into power the Iranian oil industry went back to being controlled by foreign oil firms.  Iran could have been a threat to be overtaken by the Soviet Union, but the United States and United Kingdom had no authority to stage a coup to put in place a monarch that would put in place more favorable policy for both of the countries. Mostafa Zahrani wrote that the motives of the United States in the coup are still only hypotheses but that America could have wanted to gained portion of the Iranian oil industry which Britain agreed to give forty percent of its share to America.  The motives in Iran were both finicial and political, but both did not take in account what the people of Iran wanted.  

Iranians began to resent western culture after they felt they had their rights violated by foreign countries.  The country democratically elected an official they wished to be put in control and then the United States and Great Britain took it upon themselves to displace him.  The coup has been seen as the main reason for the 1979 Islamic Revolution that occurred in Iran (Bezhan).  The coup was America's short-term fix for a problem that had yet to transpire.  It has since left America with long-term problems and helped lead to the rise of radical Islamists and radical leftists in Iran.  Both of these groups have worked to fight the goals and interests of America for the years following these events (Bezhan).  The Middle East became one of the major areas of struggles of power during the Cold War because of these events and has helped lead to its instability that is seen in the region today (Bezhan).   

If the coup in Iran had failed the United States and other nations would have looked for alternative methods to solve foreign problems.  The coup was labeled as a success by America and was adapted as a key part in America's foreign policy for the 1950's and beyond (Bezhan).  The CIA staged a coup in Guatemala in 1954 a year after the events in Iran.  Following the revolution of 1944, Guatemala democratically elected leftist to its government (Barrett).  America had many land holdings in Guatemala that began to be taken away from their American owners and used to Guatemala's gain (Barrett).  The combination of a government that was veering more and more left towards communism and the stealing of American land holding and assets lead to the coup in 1954 (Barrett).  America with the help of Guatemalan military leaders overthrew the Arbenz government that was in place at the time (Barrett).  At the time the coup was viewed as a success.  Today the act has been looked at as shameful.  Following the coup Guatemala experienced five decades of hostile treatment that was far worse than anything that was under the Arbenz government.  

The CIA directly staged the actions in Guatemala with collaborations from the White House and Congress.  Many in the government however had no knowledge of the events transpiring in Guatemala.  The CIA was able to work with almost no oversight during the early years of the Cold War (Barrett).  This lead to the CIA being able to do whatever actions they deemed necessary to stop the spread of Communism.  Part of the problem was that the CIA was able to freely do whatever they wished during this time.  The government leads to have limits place on itself.  The CIA during the 50's and later into the Cold War was reckless with its decisions to stage coups and undermine foreign governments.  

In 1973 the Chilean government had their democratically elected Socialist leader Salvador Allende overthrown.  The coup put in place Chilean military leaders lead by Pinochet.  This coup has been seen as very different than the previous coups that occurred in South America due to its hostility (Steenland).  Many had envisioned moderates to take control following the coup but this failed to occur and lead to Pinochet's brutal ruling.  Steenland wrote in 1974 a year after the events that many of the 15,000-20,000 people who had been killed were working class people.  While the CIA did not directly stage the coup in Chile the government did however know of the events and had previously engaged in covert operations in Chile with the intent of staging a coup (The Allende Years and the Pinochet Coup).  The Chilean coup resulted in a country that was incredibly hostile and fragile.  

Ben Kirby wrote that the coup in Chile that occurred over forty years ago has had a lasting effect on the people of Chile and the country has yet to fully recover.  Many of the citizens of Chile were detained after the coup and tortured regularly.  The human rights of many were violated after the coup and this was overlooked by many nations.  Kirby wrote, "Some were pleased, particularly in the United States, where the coup enjoyed the covert support of the Nixon administration."  The United States and other nations were happy with the results of the coup and did nothing to try and stop it.  While, the United States may not have been directly involved in this coup it had gave its support and did not intervene when it went bad.

 More recently the United States has engaged in regime change in Iraq.  The Bush administration staged a regime change in Baghdad to take Saddam Hussein out of power (Dodge).  The aim of the regime change in Iraq was to put in place a diplomatic leader that would comply with America diplomatic desires and allow domestic repression (Dodge).  Dodge wrote, "Their 'right' to sovereignty was now only to be granted when these states had met their US defined 'responsibilities' to international community."  These responsibilities included repressing terrorist activity, following trade and banking arrangements, and not allowing the production of weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam's regime did not perform these tasks and the Bush administration stepped in.  Once Saddam was displaced the Iraqi public was able to express their opinions.  No single party was able to rally countrywide support and this left Iraq broken.  The burden was now put on the American government to help establish a democratic system for Iraq operates on.  

The efforts in Iraq have now been widely criticized and labeled as a failure by many.  The country has been a hotbed for radical Islam and has lead to the Islamic State of Iraq to grow.  Thousands of Sunni Muslims that had previously been loyal to Saddam Hussein during his regime were left without jobs and had their assets stripped (Cassis).  The Sunni resentment towards the United States was obvious and Al Qaeda saw an opportunity to capitalize and recruit thousands to fight against Americans.  The groups now called the Al Qaeda in Iraq formed and spend the next few years traveling between Syria and Iraq fighting.  It eventually changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS.  The regime change that displaced Saddam Hussein can be directly linked to the formation of ISIS.  Long-term effects of regime change continue to not be thought of and have lead to severe consequences.  

The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein is an example of a time that America felt it needed to invade an area in order to help the people of that country.  American believed the country to be an 'axis of evil' that could cause global destruction.  Many think this is enough to warrant a regime change.  However, America was rash in its actions and did not completely think of the consequences of removing Saddam from power as they previously did in their other coups.  Action was clearly needed in the region, but the Bush administration failed to completely think everything through and left Iraq in a very hostile environment that lead to the growth of radical Islam.   

In 2011, the United States military and other nations of NATO helped lead the overthrow of Libya's dictator Muammar Gaddafi.  Gaddafi was under scrutiny by foreign countries for mass killings of its citizens.  Gareth Porter wrote that the Joint Chief of Staff had been reluctant to support an overthrow of Gaddafi.  The Joint Chief of Staff believed that the removal of Gaddafi would result in an opening for al-Qaeda forces to take over in the country.  President Obama however was unwilling to listen to the Joint Chief of Staff and went through with the killing of Gaddafi.  Obama's administration was unwilling to work on negotiations that would have avoided regime change.  Dennis Kucinich, a former Congressman and former Presidential candidate, contacted the Obama administration to tell them he had gained information from an intermediary in Libya that Gaddafi was willing to work on a negotiation to end the civil war in Libya (Shapiro and Riddell).  Obama was unwilling to work with Gaddafi and did not engage in talks to end the civil war.  Libya has since been under constant violence that included the attack on the United States consulate in Libya and the Second Libyan Civil War.  United States military leaders discouraged regime change and negotiation to end fighting in Libya could have occurred, but Obama and his administration acted without thought and staged yet another failed regime change that has left Libya is a hostile crisis.   

Syria has been the most recent target of the United States for a possible regime change.  President Bashar al-Assad in the current president in Syria and has been under scrutiny for the killings of unarmed civilians in attempts to fight off Sunni rebels.  James Anderson wrote that the international pressure for a removal or resignation of Assad have increased heavily.  Obama's administration had previously been very adamant that they wished for regime change in Syria.  Gareth Porter wrote that the intervention by Russia to help fight ISIS in Syria has lead to the United States to turn away from regime change efforts.  Russia and America are now focused on fighting off the rebel ISIS group in Syria rather than toppling the Assad regime.  The decision to move away from regime change shows that regime change can be avoided and is not always the answer.  

America's failures in regime change are obvious at this point.  Alexander Downes stated that the entire world defense budget combined in nearly the same as America's defense spending alone.  This amount of spending has lead to the United States have unprecedented amount of influence in the world and has lead America to be willing to intervene with its military when deemed necessary.  Downes believes that since the United States military is so willing to intervene with its military in foreign affairs regime change is unavoidable unless with have a realignment in our foreign policy strategy.  Regime change continues to fail as a viable foreign policy strategy for a combination of reasons.  Downes believes regime change fails so often because its creates a violent environment that alienates at least one group of people while lifting another group up, the intervening country is unaware of the desires of the people in the country, and the country staging the regime change does not stay in the area long enough for it to be stable.  Dirk Vandewalle wrote about how Libya had began to flourish after the toppling of Gaddafi.  He wrote about these events in the later months of 2012.  Vandewalle with his writings shows Downes point that countries fail to stay involved in the countries they intervene in.  Libya was doing well and then countries began to leave them alone and Libya eventually fell back in civil war in 2014 and no end is in sight.  The combination of these factors lead to more than 40 percent of country that experience a regime change to have a civil war occur within ten years (Downes).  The leaders put in place are unable to keep control of power and a struggle for power erupts.  Regime change has become a very readily available stragety to solve complicated foreign problems because of the sheer size of America's military.  The military however needs to understand that while it may be easy to use its immense power it is not often that simple.  

Many prominent figures in United States politics have began to come out against regime change.  Bernie Sanders, a US Senator and presidential candidate, has said America can work with its allies to overthrow any nation they wish in the world however; America needs to understand what occurs once you remove these leaders (Bernie Sanders on Regime Change and Mossadegh).  Sanders believes that America needs to look past regime change as a viable option to dispose of leaders in foreign nations because America does not understand the long term effect of regime change.  Rand Paul, a US Senator and former Presdential Candidate, has said that regime change does not work and it leads to chaos.  In recent years Paul has said that the chaos that regime change causes has lead to the rise of radical Islam which allows terrorism to rise (Rand Pual on Regime Change).  Both Sanders and Paul are prominent figures in United States politics at the moment who believe that America needs to move away from regime change.  They both believe regime change leaves countries in chaos and that chaos can lead to the rise of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda which put America under threat of attack.  

Alternatives for regime change need to be established and put in place by the United States.  Richard Haass wrote, "containment's second, subordinate goal was regime change."  America adapted the policy of containment to deal with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.  Containment during the Cold War was seen as trying to stop the spread over communism and by doing so their influence will be prevented.  Haass believes that containment undermining goal was regime change.  It would achieve regime change through very incremental steps.  This was achieved with the Soviet Union but it took over forty years (Haass).  Regime change is a direct use military force to achieve the goal of displacing foreign leaders.  Haass advocates for regime evolution.  Regime evolution is achieved through diplomacy and using foreign policy tools rather than rash military actions.   During regime evolution diplomacy between nations is needed in order to protect the interest of the United States.  Haass said that this was prevalent during the Cold War as the United States would engage in talks to limit weapons of mass destruction in order to avoid a war.  Eventually the Soviet Union fell and the regime was displaced.  The fall of the Soviet Union was achieved without ever having a total war and was based on diplomacy rather than military power.  Tony Palfreeman believes that an alternative to regime change can be found if the world comes together to form a consensus on how to deal with the uncertainties in the world.  By doing this Palfreeman thinks that the we will be able to address any topic including regime change by having a coalition of countries coming together to solve a problem.  Both Haass and Palfreeman think through diplomacy regime change can be avoided.  

One sign of hope for regime change comes from a legal framework for what has to occur during a regime change is being established (Butler).  This framework would outline the necessary steps that a country must take after they dispose of a foreign leader.  Jay Butler believes that if laws such as ensuring the host territory security, promoting representative governments, ensure human rights, help with post regime change conflicts, and help minority groups should be created.  He thinks that if these laws are followed regime change may be a viable option.  However, these laws are still not mandatory and most of the time the intervening country fails to promote these things.  

Regime change can be avoided by the United States.  Regime change leaves countries unstable and susceptible for a take over by a leader that can be far worse than what was previously in power.  America has the military power needed to displace any foreign leader they wish, but the government needs to understand military action is not always the best solution.  Our government should rather look for more diplomatic solutions like regime evolution to displace foreign leaders.  

