Washington, DC., 16 October 2025—
Regime change wars, the strategic military interventions aimed at overthrowing or replacing a government, have been a recurring feature of international politics, particularly in the post-World War II era. From the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, to the intervention in Libya in 2011, regime change operations have been touted as a solution to oppressive or dangerous regimes. However, history has shown that these efforts rarely achieve their intended outcomes. Regime change wars never work. In fact, they often lead to prolonged instability, humanitarian crises, and unintended consequences.
The Complexity of Political Systems
Regimes, particularly those in authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states, are not isolated entities but are embedded in complex political systems. These systems often include networks of patronage, security apparatuses, military alliances, and informal power structures. When a foreign power attempts to overthrow a regime, it risks dismantling an intricate balance of power that can lead to chaos.
Iraq is perhaps the most widely cited example of this phenomenon. When the US invaded in 2003, the expectation was that removing Saddam Hussein’s regime would pave the way for a stable, democratic government. Likewise, Libya’s 2011 intervention led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, but the ensuing civil war and fragmentation of the country demonstrated how removing a central authority can leave a nation in disarray. More than a decade later, Libya is considered a failed state.
The prospect of a military intervention or regime change war in Venezuela has been a subject of debate in US political circles. As the country grapples with economic collapse, political instability, and humanitarian crises, some argue that a hardline approach might be the answer to unseating the Maduro government. However, such a course of action is fraught with dangers that could not only exacerbate Venezuela’s suffering but also destabilize the broader region and undermine global norms around sovereignty and international diplomacy.
Power Vacuums and the Rise of Extremism
One of the most predictable outcomes of regime change wars is the creation of a power vacuum. When a dictator or ruling elite is removed, the structures that once held society together often collapse, leading to competition among rival groups for control. In many cases, extremist factions or insurgent groups can exploit this vacuum, exacerbating instability.
In Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein triggered a violent power vacuum. The dismantling of the government, military, and security forces led to widespread sectarian violence and a rise in insurgent activity. It created an environment ripe for the rise of groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) to gain a foothold, eventually evolving into the Islamic State (ISIS), which capitalized on the chaos to take control of large parts of Iraq and Syria. This demonstrates that the political systems of authoritarian regimes, even if repressive, often maintain a fragile stability that can collapse when the regime is toppled.
In Libya, the lack of a central authority to restore order after Gaddafi’s removal led to an explosion of rival factions vying for control of the country. The state became fragmented into militias, warlords, and extremist groups. The lack of governance in Libya led to its transformation into a breeding ground for extremist groups, including ISIS affiliates, making it a regional hub of instability, fighting for control of the country’s resources.
The situation in Venezuela, though not the result of direct military intervention, is a more subtle illustration of the destabilizing effects of an external attempt for force regime change. US sanctions, covert operations, and support for opposition movements have deepened political divisions and exacerbated the country’s economic crisis. While the Venezuelan government under Nicolás Maduro has remained in power, the external pressure has led to severe economic hardship, mass migration, and growing internal strife. The situation illustrates how external attempts to change a regime can cause greater harm to the population without achieving the desired result.
The Misreading of Local Contexts
Regime change wars are often based on a foreign power’s assumptions about the political, social, and cultural dynamics of the target country. Western governments, for instance, may believe that removing a dictator will automatically lead to democratic reforms or a stable government. However, these interventions often fail to account for the local realities, historical grievances, ethnic tensions, and power dynamics that influence a nation’s stability.
In Iraq, the assumption that the removal of Saddam Hussein would lead to a flourishing of democracy ignored the deep sectarian divides between Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish populations. The notion that a Shia-majority government would be able to peacefully coexist with the Sunni minorities and Kurdish groups proved to be deeply flawed, leading to widespread disenfranchisement, particularly among Sunnis, and the eventual breakdown of the state. The misreading of local contexts is not unique to Iraq – it has been a recurring theme in other regime change wars, such as in Afghanistan and Libya.
In Afghanistan, the US and NATO’s assumption that an imposed democracy could thrive was equally misguided. The country’s history of tribalism, ethnic divisions, and weak central governance meant that the establishment of a central, democratic government was an unrealistic goal. This misreading of local conditions led to a prolonged war with no clear end in sight.
Similarly, Venezuela’s political crisis is rooted in a complex interplay of historical, social, and economic factors, many of which have been exacerbated by external sanctions and foreign support for opposition groups. The US has long misunderstood the strength of the political base that supports Maduro and the widespread resistance to foreign intervention in the country’s internal affairs. The simplistic notion that ousting Maduro would restore stability and democracy ignores the entrenched political polarization and the powerful interests supporting the current regime.
Long-Term Costs and Consequences
The consequences of regime change wars are rarely limited to the period immediately following the intervention. The long-term costs – both human and financial – can be staggering. These costs are often underestimated by the governments initiating the interventions, leading to prolonged engagements that drain resources and result in significant loss of life.
Take Afghanistan, for example. The US-led invasion in 2001, aimed at dismantling the Taliban regime, ultimately led to nearly two decades of conflict. Despite billions of dollars spent, the Taliban was never fully defeated, and after the US announced its withdrawal in 2021, the group quickly regained control of the country – even before the US left Kabul. The human toll was immense, with tens of thousands of Afghan civilians killed and millions displaced, alongside the deaths of thousands of foreign soldiers. The costs of such interventions are not just financial; they also create deep trauma for the populations affected, destabilizing entire regions and affecting global security.
Iraq also bears witness to the long-term effects of regime change. Over 4,000 US service members and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives. The cost of rebuilding the country, both in terms of financial aid and human capital, far exceeded early expectations. The enduring instability and the rise of ISIS further demonstrate how regime change created an enduring cycle of violence, with repercussions felt not just in Iraq but across the Middle East.
Notably, Venezuela’s neighbors, including Colombia, Brazil, and Guyana, are already dealing with the ripple effects of the crisis. A war in Venezuela would destabilize not just the country, but the entire region. As the situation stands, countries like Colombia are grappling with large numbers of Venezuelan refugees crossing their borders, stretching already limited resources and healthcare systems. A military conflict could lead to more refugees and potentially create security challenges, including the rise of armed groups along porous borders.
The Venezuelan crisis has had spillover effects in terms of organized crime, drug trafficking, and guerrilla activity in surrounding countries. A full-scale regime change war would only embolden criminal networks and destabilize fragile states in the region, potentially leading to greater violence and unrest. Given the geopolitical interests of neighboring powers like Russia, China, and even Iran, who have historically supported the Maduro regime, any military intervention could ignite broader regional tensions, complicating efforts to secure peace and stability in Latin America.
The Ethical Dilemma: Sovereignty vs. Intervention
Regime change wars also raise important ethical questions about the principles of state sovereignty and the right of foreign powers to intervene in the internal affairs of another country. International law, as articulated by the United Nations, generally emphasizes the sovereignty of states and their right to self-determination. Interventions that involve the use of force to change a government’s leadership often violate these principles.
While the international community may justify intervention under the banner of human rights protection or the fight against terrorism, the effectiveness of these interventions in actually improving conditions on the ground is highly debatable. In many cases, the immediate removal of a regime is followed by years of suffering for the population. The ethical implications of causing more harm than good through regime change must be seriously considered.
In Venezuela, US-led efforts to change the government via sanctions and support for opposition groups have further polarized the country. While the US argues that its actions are aimed at restoring democracy, the consequences of these efforts have been devastating for the population, deepening economic hardship and increasing human suffering.
One of the advocates for a US military intervention in Venezuela is Maria Machado, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Machado has repeatedly called for US intervention to forcibly remove Maduro, and she has gone as far as to say in interviews that the US could have the oil. In plain terms, taking a country’s resources as payment for the invasion is highly unethical and an all-around bad idea that could lead to no good outcome.
Lack of Post-Conflict Planning
Perhaps one of the most glaring reasons why regime change wars fail is the lack of a coherent and sustainable plan for post-conflict reconstruction. Removing a regime is one thing: rebuilding a country afterward is another entirely. In Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, the US and its allies failed to establish a stable political framework to replace the old regimes. This left the door open for corruption, ineffective governance, and the emergence of insurgencies.
Without proper post-war planning, nations often spiral into further conflict. The absence of infrastructure, lack of security, and failure to rebuild essential institutions leave the population vulnerable. In the case of Iraq, reconstruction efforts were mired in inefficiency and corruption, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and resentment among Iraqis.
UN experts and other international groups estimate that the clean-up and reconstruction of Gaza will take 3 to 4 decades – that’s 30 to 40 years. Reconstruction could take longer depending on multiple factors, including continued political instability, funding, and the challenge of cleaning massive amounts of unexploded ordnance. Keep in mind the removal of the dead buried beneath the rubble.
A Call for a Different Approach
Regime change wars have proven to be an unreliable and often disastrous tool of foreign policy. The promise of bringing democracy and stability to nations through military intervention is frequently unmet, replaced instead by violence, extremism, and state failure. The cycle of military interventions, regime removals, and subsequent instability must prompt a reevaluation of the wisdom of such policies.
Rather than continuing the strategy of military-led regime change, international efforts should focus on supporting diplomatic solutions, promoting peacebuilding initiatives, and strengthening international institutions that foster cooperation and stability. In the long run, the world may be better served by emphasizing non-violent means of conflict resolution and respecting the sovereignty of nations rather than resorting to the blunt instrument of military intervention.
Photo credit: Firdos Square, Baghdad Iraq – 9 April 2003. The toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein signifies the end of the regime. (Kajs)
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, an NGO nonprofit organization in Washington, DC. She is the author of Beyond the Veil: Afghan Women and Girls’ Journey to Freedom (forthcoming), Assad’s Syria, and Stories from Yemen: A Diary from the Field, available in e-book, paperback, and hardcover at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Apple Books, and independent bookstores worldwide. Distributed by Ingram. Ms. Kajs frequently speaks about atrocity crimes, forced displacement, and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Follow and connect with Lara Kajs on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and Bluesky.