By Atiq Raja
Throughout its modern history, the United States has positioned itself as a defender of democracy and freedom, a role that has often involved supporting—or indeed orchestrating—regime change abroad. Such interventions, whether through covert operations or overt military force, have been justified as essential to countering communism, terrorism, or oppressive regimes that threaten American interests. Yet, each instance has left a distinctive and often painful legacy, shaping both the destinies of foreign nations and the United States’ reputation on the global stage. From Iran’s overthrow in 1953 to Libya’s destabilization in 2011, these cases underscore the complexity, and frequently unintended consequences, of intervening in sovereign nations.
Iran’s 1953 coup, among the most formative U.S. regime-change operations, set a precedent for Cold War policy. The context was the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a move that directly challenged British control and revenue from Iranian oil. Concerned by Mossadegh’s independence, and alarmed by the faintest hints of a communist alignment, the United States collaborated with the British to execute Operation Ajax. The operation saw Mossadegh ousted and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi restored to power. While it allowed Western companies to maintain control over Iran’s oil resources, the intervention implanted a pro-Western authoritarian regime that ignored the public’s demands for democracy. This deepened resentment among Iranians and laid the foundation for the 1979 revolution, which saw the Shah deposed and Iran radically transformed. The Iran coup became an enduring emblem of how U.S. involvement, driven by geopolitical and economic interests, can inadvertently sow the seeds of long-term conflict.
In Guatemala, the United States repeated its Cold War strategy in 1954. Jacobo Árbenz, Guatemala’s democratically elected president, initiated progressive land reforms that affected large foreign-owned estates, particularly those of the United Fruit Company, a major American corporation with significant lobbying power in Washington. Árbenz’s policies, though aimed at addressing widespread inequality, were interpreted by the Eisenhower administration as a communist threat. Operation PBSUCCESS, a CIA-backed effort to remove Árbenz, led to his overthrow and the installation of a military dictatorship. The coup may have secured U.S. economic interests, but it triggered decades of violence, repression, and civil war. The Guatemalan case highlights how U.S. interventions, even when framed as protection against communism, can provoke profound instability, leaving lasting damage on the social and political fabric of the region.
Chile’s experience illustrates a parallel story, one that underscores the tension between supporting democratic ideals and pursuing strategic interests. In 1970, socialist leader Salvador Allende became Chile’s first democratically elected Marxist president, alarming the U.S. administration. His reforms, including the nationalization of copper mines owned by American corporations, posed an economic threat to U.S. businesses and ideological concerns to Washington. Through both financial support to opposition forces and coordination with the Chilean military, the U.S. helped facilitate the 1973 coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. Allende’s removal marked the start of Pinochet’s nearly two-decade rule, characterized by brutal repression and human rights abuses, including torture and disappearances. While Chile eventually emerged as a stronghold of neoliberal economics and experienced economic growth, the social cost was severe. The Chilean example is emblematic of how the U.S. approach to regime change often favors stability and economic gain over democratic values, even when it means endorsing brutal regimes.
In more recent times, the 2003 Iraq War stands as one of the most controversial cases of regime change in the 21st century. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration presented Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as an imminent threat, alleging that the Iraqi leader harbored weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorism. The invasion, framed as part of the War on Terror, led to the rapid removal of Hussein, but the power vacuum left behind had devastating consequences. Sectarian conflict erupted, claiming countless lives and paving the way for the rise of extremist groups like ISIS. Far from the stable democracy that had been envisioned, Iraq descended into chaos and violence, leaving the U.S. entangled in a costly and protracted conflict. The Iraq War underscored the inherent risks of intervention without a clear and achievable post-conflict plan, particularly when ideological aims clash with the complex realities on the ground.
Libya’s story reflects similar pitfalls. During the Arab Spring in 2011, the U.S. and NATO intervened in Libya with airstrikes to weaken Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, which was known for its oppressive rule and support of terrorism. Gaddafi was ultimately overthrown and killed, a victory for those hoping to see an end to his autocratic rule. However, in the absence of a viable successor or stable political framework, Libya quickly fractured. Competing factions vied for power, extremism flourished, and the country has remained in turmoil ever since. Despite the goal of liberating the Libyan people, the intervention left the country destabilized, exposing the hazards of intervention without a robust plan for reconstruction.
These cases illustrate the often unpredictable and far-reaching outcomes of U.S. regime change operations. While these interventions are frequently rationalized as protecting national security or promoting democracy, they also tend to prioritize immediate strategic and economic goals, often at the expense of lasting stability. The complex legacies of these actions—ranging from social upheaval to human rights abuses—continue to shape global attitudes toward U.S. foreign policy, raising enduring questions about the ethical responsibilities of powerful nations in international affairs. As the U.S. navigates new challenges in a rapidly shifting world order, these historical precedents stand as a powerful reminder of the potential costs and unintended consequences of seeking to reshape the world through intervention.
(The writer is a rights activist and CEO of AR Trainings and Consultancy, with degrees in Political Science and English Literature, can be reached at news@metro-morning.com)
