The Pros And Cons Of Regime Change

The United States has achieved a reputation for interfering with and overthrowing foreign governments, although it is surrounded by much controversy. Supporters of foreign intervention argue that regime change has often succeeded in protecting the national interests of the United States, although a different argument is heard from the opposers of “regime change” operations. As stated in Overthrow, “Most American-sponsored “regime change” operations have, in the end, weakened rather than strengthened American security.” Through three specific instances of American-sponsored “regime change” operations, including the Iranian Coup of 1953, the Guatemalan Coup of 1954, and the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980’s, it is evident that US foreign intervention caused more harm than good.
First, the Iranian Coup of 1953 is an example of an American-sponsored “regime change” operation that weakened national
After a British intelligence officer presented the plan to the head of CIA operations in the middle east, Kermit Roosevelt, they sent agents to Washington to meet Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Dulles was particularly interested in the plan, although the State Department did not have the ability to overthrow a foreign government, prompting Dulles to seek assistance from the CIA and Eisenhower; Dulles was able to convince that if Mossadegh was removed from power, the Communists would be able to reap the resources of the Middle East and take over. With Eisenhower’s approval, the plan was executed; the plan consisted of generating public distrust of Mossadegh and spreading negative propaganda. However, this initial plan was a failure, resulting in the creation of a subsequent plan consisting of paying street gangs to instigate riots throughout