Regime change has gotten a bad rap since the Iraq War, but it isn’t always a path to disaster. In fact, if carried out carefully and without sparking full-scale armed conflict and occupation, regime change may not require military operations at all. A policy of regime change should be confined to the times when normal means (such as sanctions and diplomatic restraint like the Iran nuclear deal) fail or are unacceptable.
It is important to keep in mind that forcible regime change policies rarely achieve their intended goals. They are often ill-thought through and end up costing the United States more than they save. This is because forcible regime change fails to address the key reasons that dictators are so ruthless: they are totalitarian and arbitrary at home and run by small groups around one leader. If you remove the dictator, you also take out those “sinews” that hold the state together and make it viable for long-term stability and rule.
The key to successful forcible regime change is the ability to replace dictators with governments that align more closely with American interests and values. This has to be done quickly, as the autocratic states America faces—such as Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea—are in a crisis that is growing rapidly. It is also necessary to recognize that while many Americans might dislike the policies of these governments or their ideological orientation, these are not compelling enough grounds to justify regime change. In fact, regime change should be reserved for adversaries that pose an existential threat to the United States.