Overthrow

1. Regime Change: A Century-Long American Tradition

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not an isolated episode. It was the culmination of a 110-year period during which Americans overthrew fourteen governments that displeased them for various ideological, political, and economic reasons.

Historical continuity. The book establishes that "regime change" is not a recent development but a deeply ingrained aspect of American foreign policy spanning over a century. Beginning with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, the United States has consistently intervened to depose foreign governments that obstructed its political and economic objectives. This pattern demonstrates a long-standing willingness to reshape international leadership.

Fourteen governments. Over this 110-year period, the United States orchestrated the toppling of fourteen foreign governments. These operations were driven by a shifting combination of factors, including the desire to impose American ideology, increase its global power, or gain control of valuable resources. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is presented as the latest, but perhaps not the last, example of these high-stakes interventions.

Beyond diplomacy. The book distinguishes these extreme cases from other forms of American influence, such as diplomacy, defending friendly regimes, or supporting coups organized by others. It focuses exclusively on instances where the United States played the decisive role in actively arranging to depose foreign leaders, highlighting a unique and often controversial aspect of its international engagement.

2. Economic Interests Drive Interventions, Masked by Noble Rhetoric

In most cases, however, it acted mainly for economic reasons—specifically, to establish, promote, and defend the right of Americans to do business around the world without interference.

Underlying motives. While American interventions are frequently cloaked in rhetoric of national security, liberation, or democratic principles, the book argues that economic motivations are consistently paramount. The desire to secure access to foreign markets, resources, and investment opportunities for American businesses has been a primary driver behind these regime change operations. This pursuit of economic advantage often dictates which governments are deemed "uncooperative."

Corporate vanguard. The rise of multinational corporations in the 20th century coincided with America's ascent to global power, making these businesses the "vanguard of American power." Defying these corporations often became synonymous with defying the United States itself. Presidents, from William Howard Taft protecting American companies in Nicaragua to John Foster Dulles safeguarding oil interests in Iran and United Fruit in Guatemala, consistently agreed that defending corporate privileges abroad was a good way to promote American interests.

Public perception. To garner public support for these interventions, American leaders often obscured the true economic reasons. They insisted they were acting to protect national security or liberate suffering populations, knowing that an idealistic American public might not support interventions openly described as defenses of corporate power. This strategic use of rhetoric allowed interventions to proceed with minimal domestic protest, even when the underlying motives were purely commercial.

3. The Imperial Era: Open Interventions for Resources and Bases

America’s long 'regime change' century dawned in 1893 with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.

Open imperialism. The first phase of American regime change, termed the "imperial era" (1893-1911), involved more overt interventions. Leaders like John L. Stevens in Hawaii or President William Howard Taft in Nicaragua and Honduras did not hide their involvement in deposing foreign governments. This period was characterized by a direct assertion of American power to secure strategic locations and resources.

Key examples:

• Hawaii (1893): American planters, aided by Minister John L. Stevens, overthrew Queen Liliuokalani to avoid tariffs on sugar and secure annexation.
• Spanish-American War (1898): Led to control over Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, driven by a new "globally ambitious" idea of America and the need for foreign markets.
• Nicaragua (1909): President José Santos Zelaya was overthrown for regulating American companies and seeking European loans, asserting the US right to impose stability.
• Honduras (1911): Banana magnate Sam Zemurray, with US Navy support, orchestrated the overthrow of President Miguel Dávila to avoid taxes and regulations.

"Manifest destiny" abroad. This era was fueled by a belief in "manifest destiny" extending beyond North America, coupled with the economic necessity of finding new markets for America's burgeoning industrial output. The acquisition of territories like the Philippines was explicitly linked to commercial opportunities in Asia, demonstrating a clear fusion of strategic and economic ambitions.

4. The Cold War: Covert Coups Justified by Anti-Communism

During the Cold War, any direct American intervention risked provoking a reaction from the Soviets, possibly a cataclysmic one. To adjust to this new reality, the United States began using a more subtle technique, the clandestine coup d’etat, to depose foreign governments.

New geopolitical reality. After World War II, the emergence of the Soviet Union as a rival superpower constrained direct American military interventions. The risk of escalating conflicts into a nuclear confrontation led the US to adopt a new, more subtle approach: clandestine coups d'état. This marked a significant shift from the overt interventions of the imperial era, relying on intelligence agents rather than generals.

Key examples:

• Iran (1953): The CIA, led by the Dulles brothers, overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the British-owned oil industry. The coup was justified by portraying Mossadegh as leading Iran towards Communism.
• Guatemala (1954): President Jacobo Arbenz, who enacted land reform affecting United Fruit Company, was overthrown by a CIA-backed operation (Operation Success). This was framed as preventing a "Soviet beachhead."
• South Vietnam (1963): President Ngo Dinh Diem, an American ally, was overthrown and assassinated after he became unmanageable and considered negotiating with the Vietcong. This was driven by the US determination to win the Vietnam War.
• Chile (1973): President Salvador Allende, a democratically elected socialist, was destabilized and overthrown by a military coup supported by the CIA, due to his plans to nationalize American companies and fears of a "Communist government."

Ideological imperative. These covert actions were primarily justified by the ideological imperative of fighting Communism, often overriding democratic principles. American leaders, particularly John Foster Dulles, viewed nationalist movements in developing countries through the lens of the Cold War, mistakenly believing them to be Soviet puppets. This "groupthink" led to a systematic disregard for dissenting intelligence and local realities.

5. Post-Cold War: Direct Invasions Return with "Nation-Building" Claims

The decline and collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the Red Army meant that there was no longer any military constraint on the United States. That left it free to return to its habit of landing troops on foreign shores.

Unconstrained power. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the primary military constraint on US foreign policy disappeared. This allowed the United States to revert to direct military invasions, reminiscent of the imperial era, but now often framed with new justifications like fighting terrorism or promoting democracy and "nation-building."

Key examples:

• Grenada (1983): President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion to depose a Marxist regime, ostensibly to protect American medical students, but also to restore US prestige after a decade of perceived humiliations.
• Panama (1989): General Manuel Noriega, a former CIA asset, was overthrown by a massive invasion (Operation Just Cause) due to his drug trafficking, electoral fraud, and defiance of US interests, with the stated goal of restoring democracy.
• Afghanistan (2001): Following the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush ordered the overthrow of the Taliban regime for harboring Al Qaeda, initially relying on air power and local militias.
• Iraq (2003): President George W. Bush launched an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein, primarily justified by claims of weapons of mass destruction and later by the goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East.

Shifting justifications. While protecting American citizens or fighting terrorism were immediate pretexts, these invasions also reflected a broader ambition to assert global leadership and reshape regions according to American ideals. The "nation-building" aspect, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, represented a new, albeit often reluctant, commitment to post-conflict stabilization, a departure from earlier patterns of withdrawal.

6. Interventions Lead to Long-Term Instability and Anti-American Sentiment

From the vantage point of history, however, it is clear that most of these operations actually weakened American security. They cast whole regions of the world into upheaval, creating whirlpools of instability from which undreamed-of threats arose years later.

Unintended consequences. Despite often achieving short-term objectives, American regime change operations have consistently generated severe long-term negative consequences. Instead of fostering stability, they frequently plunge nations and entire regions into prolonged upheaval, leading to unforeseen threats and a cycle of violence. This pattern suggests a fundamental flaw in the interventionist approach.

Examples of blowback:

• Iran (1953): The overthrow of Mossadegh led to 25 years of repressive Shah rule, culminating in the anti-American Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the hostage crisis.
• Guatemala (1954): The coup against Arbenz ushered in decades of brutal military dictatorships and a civil war that killed over 200,000 people, radicalizing figures like Che Guevara.
• Cuba (post-1898): US suppression of Cuban independence and support for dictators like Batista directly contributed to the rise of Fidel Castro and a fiercely anti-American Communist regime.
• Afghanistan (1980s-2001): US support for fundamentalist mujahideen against the Soviets inadvertently fostered the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, leading to the 9/11 attacks.

Erosion of trust. These interventions have not only destabilized target countries but also severely damaged America's image globally. Millions worldwide have come to view the United States as a hypocritical power, willing to sacrifice democratic ideals for its own interests, thereby fueling deep-seated anti-American sentiment and undermining its moral authority.

7. American Exceptionalism Fuels Interventionist Impulses

Americans consider themselves to be, in Herman Melville’s words, 'a peculiar, chosen people, the Israel of our times.'

Divine mandate. A core belief driving American interventionism is the conviction of American exceptionalism – the idea that the United States is a nation uniquely endowed with virtue and a special mission. This belief, rooted in historical narratives of "manifest destiny" and religious fervor, leads many Americans to believe they are doing "God's work" by spreading their political and economic system globally. This self-perception often overrides pragmatic considerations.

Benevolent motives. Presidents, from McKinley to George W. Bush, have consistently presented interventions as acts of benevolence, self-sacrificing charity, or a noble desire to liberate the oppressed. This rhetoric resonates with the American public's self-image as decent people who wish to share their good fortune. It allows leaders to garner popular support for overseas adventures, even when underlying motives are self-interested or commercial.

Imposing ideals. This conviction implies that Western-style democracy and capitalism are universally ideal and will be embraced once "artificial barriers" (i.e., uncooperative regimes) are removed. It often disregards the complexities of local cultures, traditions, and national consciousness, leading to the mistaken belief that American influence can easily reshape other countries in its own image, often by force.

8. Decision-Making Often Ignores Local Realities and Dissenting Intelligence

Officials in Washington paid no heed. They rejected or ignored all intelligence reports that contradicted what they instinctively believed.

"Groupthink" and presidential will. A recurring pattern in American regime change operations is the prevalence of "groupthink" within the White House and senior advisory circles. Once a president and a few key advisors signal a desire to overthrow a particular government, dissenting opinions, even from experienced intelligence agents or diplomats, are often dismissed or ignored. This creates an echo chamber where preconceived notions override objective analysis.

Ignorance of local context. American leaders frequently demonstrate a profound ignorance of the specific histories, cultures, and political dynamics of the countries they target. For instance, McKinley admitted ignorance of the Philippines, and John Foster Dulles viewed all nationalist movements through a simplistic anti-Communist lens, disregarding local nuances. This lack of understanding leads to misjudgments about the nature of foreign regimes and the likely consequences of intervention.

Dismissal of warnings. Chiefs of CIA stations in Tehran, Guatemala City, Saigon, and Santiago explicitly warned against the coups, but their advice was disregarded. Similarly, warnings about the post-invasion challenges in Iraq were dismissed as "whining doubters." This consistent refusal to listen to on-the-ground intelligence that contradicts desired policy outcomes is a critical factor in the repeated failures and unintended consequences of these operations.

9. "Catastrophic Success" Highlights Post-Overthrow Planning Failures

The closest he ever came to self-criticism was a lament that the operation went too well. 'Had we to do it over again,' he said in an interview sixteen months after the invasion, 'we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success.'

Unprepared for victory. A striking feature of many American regime change operations is the lack of planning for the post-overthrow phase. Military victories are often swift and decisive, but the subsequent occupation and "nation-building" efforts are frequently chaotic and ill-conceived. This unpreparedness for the aftermath transforms initial military "success" into long-term political and social disaster.

Iraq as a prime example. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, while militarily swift, quickly devolved into violent anarchy. The dissolution of the Iraqi army and the sweeping ban on former Baath Party members created a massive, armed, and angry unemployed population. The failure to secure borders, guard weapons depots, or deploy sufficient troops led to a potent insurgency, demonstrating a profound misjudgment of post-invasion realities.

Ignoring expert advice. The Bush administration famously dismissed the State Department's "Future of Iraq" project, which had developed extensive plans for post-Saddam stability. This rejection of expert advice, driven by a belief that problems would simply resolve themselves after the dictator was gone, ensured that the military triumph would be followed by a bloody stalemate, costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and ultimately weakening American security.

10. The Cycle of Intervention Creates More Problems Than It Solves

In almost every case, overthrowing the government of a foreign country has, in the end, led both that country and the United States to grief.

Perpetuating cycles of violence. The book concludes that the blunt instrument of "regime change" rarely achieves its stated goals of long-term stability and democracy. Instead, it often destabilizes the world, creating new enemies and expanding the scope of American military commitments. The cycle of intervention, radicalization, and renewed conflict has been a consistent and tragic outcome.

Lost opportunities for diplomacy. The author argues that regime change operations are too often a substitute for thoughtful foreign policy. Diplomatic and political approaches, though more subtle and time-consuming, would likely be more effective in the long run. These methods, which involve patience, compromise, and respect for other nations' legitimate interests, are less prone to plunging countries into violence and fostering anti-American resentment.

The cost of hubris. The belief that the United States is exempt from the historical patterns of empires, and that its overwhelming power can reshape cultures by force, has proven costly. While military might can defeat armies, it cannot bend the will of nations or transform deeply established traditions. This hubris has led to immense suffering abroad and, ultimately, to a weakening of American security and moral standing in the world.

Last updated: January 10, 2026