Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Countries, like people, often believe that they know what is best for everyone. Like people,
countries sometimes have a hard time resisting the urge to demand having things their own way all of
the time. The United States is in the unique position of having a powerful tool of 'having its way' across
the world – governments which disagree with the United States can often find themselves put out of
power, with the occasional exception. Regime changes sponsored by the United States stretch back far
earlier than the Cold War – part of the chaotic history of Mexico was caused by the United States'
placement of Santa Ana at the head of Mexico multiple times, despite his corrupt influence on the
Mexican government and the Hawaiian Royal Family was displaced by American action – however, the
Cold War is the first time where regime changes became a widely pursued (if not widely
acknowledged). From the Cold War it is easy to observe the excesses of alterations of governments.
From the Cold War, we can see that although covert regime changes may be convenient or beneficial to
America, it is never legitimate, and very rarely helps improve the situation except in the shortest of
short term.
Of the examples of regime change in American foreign policy history, Chile is one of the more
President of Chile at the head of a Socialist coalition during a contested election which even American
influence couldn't alter, prompting American concern over American interests in Chile threatened by
Allende's proposed land reforms. Economic chaos grew in Chile, including rampant inflation which
threatened to collapse the country. The United States took the opportunity of domestic unrest to sponsor
military discontents highly placed in the Chilean military. General Augusto Pinochet emerged at its
head, taking control of the government in a coup and ending the dangerous socialist reforms. Allende
committed suicide during the coup. From the American standpoint, all objectives had been achieved –
Latin American chaos had been avoided, and (most importantly) the spread of Communism had been
stopped once more. Within twenty years, however, the world changed, and the change of regime
became less appealing. In 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev made it eminently clear to the world that the new
Soviet Union was not even interested in supporting his own satellites in Eastern Europe, much less
pursing a worldwide communism. The threat of communism on the rest of the world transformed
quickly from a paranoiac threat to a nostalgic memory. No longer was 'communism' the big enemy, so
the United States was much less inclined to battle socialism wherever it lurked. Without the anti-
socialist sentiment in the United States, the abusive government of Pinochet transformed from a
defense of the world and into a danger. His abuses of his people were shameful, and no longer did it
seem like a welcome sacrifice on behalf of the war against communism. Pinochet had by that point
already transitioned his country into a democracy, and was defeated in an election in 1989, relieving the
Another poignant example of regime change is a country wherein the United States found itself
involved to various degrees on no less then four occasions. Iraq, a former British colony, fell to a pro-
Soviet military cabal in 1958, led by Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim. Qassim was removed in
1963 by Colonel Abdul Salam Arif, with the backing of the United States, searching to remove the
Soviet influence in the region. When Arif died and was replaced by a more pro-Soviet Abdul Rahman
Arif, who was toppled in a coup by Saddam Hussein, leader of the Ba'ath Socialist Party, with United
States backing. During Hussein's dictatorship, the United States also sponsored Hussein through his
war with Iran. These two examples of American involvement in Iraq were prompted by the Cold War.
Hussein was supported despite Hussein's gassing of Kurds during the late 80s, because the Cold War
was still in effect and the United States tolerated human rights abuses if they benefited the fight against
Communism. Less than five years later, however, the United States was engaged in a war with Hussein
and the Iraqi army that it had helped supply. The difference is that in 1990, when Hussein invaded
Kuwait, the Soviet Union was collapsing and seemed only to threaten itself. President George Herbert
Walker Bush in the United States did not see it necessary to tolerate Iraqi belligerence due to Cold War
tactics. However, the Cold War wasn't over yet, and Bush did not pursue Operation Desert Storm to the
point of Regime Change. In 2002, however, President George W. Bush did not have the same
constraints. At the time, the country which enjoyed so much weapons aid and money from the United
States was already carrying international sanctions prompted by the United States. In the 2002 State of
the Union address, George Bush cited Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as forming part of an 'axis
of evil.' Where Hussein's government had been a favored recipient of American support, it now was
listed as one of our chief enemies. Had Iraq possessed the chemical weapons which Bush claimed it
had, then surely it would have had them as a result of American involvement. Because the United
States installed a dictator in order to keep out communism, the United States found itself involved in
Iraq again to install a democracy in order to keep out dictatorship. Can we believe that we have finally
settled the issue once and for all, where three previous involvements failed? Perhaps we will find
ourselves in a decade deposing an Islamic fundamentalist government (similar in makeup to our current
foe, Iran) in favor of yet another government. These changes only buy us a short time of relative safety,
The most surprising point to observe is that the previous two cases discussed are examples of
where regime change succeeded – the governments of Hussein and Pinochet are the governments
which America wanted in place, at least at the time. Equally worrying is the effect of a failed attempt to
change the government. Iran, which was under the control of a democratically elected leader, moved
toward socialist reform in the mid-1950s. Similar to the supposed threat toward American companies
which Allende posed in Chile, Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh attempted to nationalize
the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In response, England and America engaged in a joint operation titled
“Operation Ajax” which deposed Dr. Mossadegh's government and reinstated the Iranian monarchy,
under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Shah was another unpopular dictator, but unlike Pinochet or
Hussein, the Shah was not powerful enough to protect himself from the Islamic Revolution of 1979,
which replaced the Shah with Ayatollah Khomeini, whose fundamentalist Islamic country was rabidly
anti-American – during the Islamic Revolution, United States embassy workers were taking hostage,
and several died during American attempts to free them. For the next twenty years, American-Iranian
relations were extremely negative, and Iran played an anti-American role in the Middle East. In the
1980s, Iran went to war with the US supported Saddam Hussein. Iran also funded Hezbollah, the PLO,
Hamas, and Islamic Jihad – groups whose operations were aimed at Israeli citizens, who were allies of
the United States. In the 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush named Iran part of the 'axis of evil' as
well, and in mid-2005 it became apparent that Iran was on the verge of becoming nuclear-capable. At
this point in 2006, one of the most publicized dangers to the United States is the fear that Iran will gain
nuclear weapons and use them to destroy Israel, or at the very least to protect themselves in a way
which gains them more freedom to destabilize Israeli relations. Iran's effect on the new Iraqi
government is also noticeable – the Shi'ite majority government which just came into power includes a
bloc of religious Shi'ite parties. One of these parties is SCIRI – the Supreme Council for the Islamic
Revolution in Iraq. SCIRI is a Shi'ite majority with close ties to the Iranian government. It remains to
be seen whether pro-Iranian segments of the Iraqi government will negatively affect American relations
with the new Iraq, but it is certainly a cause for some small concern.
The risks posed by regime changes are many; a government sponsored by America now might
one day become a bitter enemy, and the very machinery which America gave that government to
defend itself becomes the defense that government has against America. America's friends may not
reflect the will of their people – like Pinochet, Hussein, or the Shah, these men are typically strong
centralist undemocratic leaders, simply by the method of their attainment of power. A man who arrives
in a military coup is usually not seeking to throw his extra powers aside once he has the throne. The
reasons for regime change may be selfish, such as oil interests in Iran, or short-lived, like anti-
communism pressures. Regardless of success or failure, covert regime changes tend to instill anti-
Americanism in the changed countries, and tend to lend themselves to societal instability and human
rights abuses. These risks come with temporary, debatable rewards. Regime changes are a gamble; a