The Unfinished Promises of US Regime Operations and a Precarious Future for International Law
- WULR Team
- Jul 8
- 7 min read
An analysis of the historical failures of U.S. regime change operations and how the current administration's military actions in Iran threaten the integrity of international law.
Published July 8th, 2026
Written by Lucia Martino
For years, the United States has attempted to remove foreign powers and replace them with something new. To what extent have these operations been successful, and what strategies have been used across history to put pressure on leaders for regime change? Most importantly, has long-term stability ever been achieved? In early January, President Trump removed Venezuela’s leader, Nicolas Maduro, from power. About two months later, not much has changed for the country’s leadership. This stagnation raises questions about what the Trump administration constitutes as regime change. Echoing earlier traditions in US foreign policy, Trump asserts at a press conference following the operation that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again. He even pledged to “remain involved” in Venezuela, expressing hesitance to allow someone else to take over where Maduro left off, per PBS News. Two months later, a transition has yet to occur, and with waning US pressure, the possibility for fair elections and the release of political prisoners in Venezuela remains speculative. In light of intervention in Venezuela and, most recently, Iran, the question of how US military presence in foreign countries shifted across administrations.
Strategies of short-term involvement in foreign affairs are not new concepts for US policy. Specifically, the US has repeatedly involved itself in the Latin American and Caribbean regions. These regime change wars have seldom ended with the election of a democratic leader or an inspiring grassroots movement. Instead, they often fizzle. Fifty years ago, under the Nixon administration, intervention in Chile led to the establishment of a right-wing dictatorship. In 1973, President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger worked to overthrow Chilean President Salvador Allende. Though not directly involved, the United States provided immense financial support for the Chilean military to carry out a coup to remove Allende. The coup, led by soon-to-be leader General Augusto Pinochet, succeeded, beginning the country’s long sequence of human rights violations. NPR acknowledges that US involvement in Chile occurred during an era of perpetual political dissatisfaction. Between increasing distrust in the government after Watergate and burgeoning attention to human rights violations in the Vietnam War, the US bore great responsibility.
The second Bush administration stands out for its foreign policy choices—many of which were far-reaching and controversial. Nixon’s involvement in the Chilean coup and Cold War foreign policy more broadly represented a far more discreet approach than the overt interventionist force used by the Bush administration. Under the Bush Doctrine, the president promoted two major themes: preventative war and neoconservatism. In his cover letter to the September 2002 National Security Strategy, the president’s pledge to “act against emerging threats before they are fully formed” revealed a clear warning message to states involved in terrorism. Operating from a neoconservative standpoint, Bush pushed for preemptive foreign intervention, assuming that democracy would develop through the diffusion of free markets and trade. That said, the removal of the Taliban and Hussein regimes was entirely necessary in the attempt to build democratic institutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Evidently, these states in the Middle East are vastly unstable today, suffering under the influence of terrorist groups and corrupt political systems.
It should be no surprise that regime change operations are rarely successful. As evidenced by President Trump’s removal of Nicolas Maduro, toppling a non-democratic regime is the simplest part of the operation. Certainly, the US can remove a government. However, building political legitimacy in a new regime is difficult and most of the time, nearly impossible. Democracy emerges from conditions such as high civic engagement, trust in authorities, and equal economic opportunity—all of which are created internally, not imposed upon through external forces. States themselves and their residents must build democracy from the bottom up, and neoconservative efforts to transplant these internal conditions via military operations have failed repeatedly.
The question then arises: what does regime change look like in the current administration? President Trump has rejected neoconservatism in his set of America First policies, which attempt to keep our wealth and resources, echoing the traditions of isolationism. Though he campaigned on reducing war overseas, he has now advanced the US into a war in Iran with no end date. Operation Epic Fury will undoubtedly result in prolonged military involvement in Iran, and the illegality of the mission is widely agreed upon. Criticism of the war is only increasing, not only from the public but also from officials on the inside. Counterterrorist official Joe Kent resigned on March 17, asserting that he cannot continue to support the war, simply for its irrationality. Government officials and the American public alike have grown wary of how the war in Iran closely resembles our involvement in Iraq in 2003, and its false promises of victory. Perhaps most alarmingly, both wars exemplify a defiance of UN Charter rules on the use of armed force. We should keep in mind that Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the US; rather, this war began due to pressure from Israel and its influential American lobby.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits its member states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. The two existing exceptions—authorization by the Security Council and self-defense—do not apply in this case, as the Council did not provide approval, and self-defense was not the main objective of the mission. With no evidence that Iran had been building nuclear weapons, and President Trump’s clear goal of regime change, the war thus does not fulfill the exceptions under Article 2(4). The Charter should be rather clear. Self-defense is only applicable after an attack has occurred, and many countries agree on this definition, while the US has stood with the argument that preventative actions can be taken if an attack is imminent. Our broad interpretation of this rule has proven itself to create deeper issues overseas, including mass civilian deaths and a greater chance for civil war, pointing to the larger humanitarian crisis at hand.
“To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will probably be your only chance for generations.” On February 28th, President Trump stated the Iran attacks, and most notably, the previous message raises concerns about his intentions with regime change. For instance, the actions taken to remove Nicolas Maduro are not transferable to the war in Iran. The operation in Venezuela did not dig deep into the structure of their government, but instead, the president simply removed the leader and left the regime. Iran is no Venezuela.
Though Trump has deemed Venezuela as the “perfect scenario” for what should be done in Iran, this analogy is vastly unrealistic. Toppling a regime with a population of 92 million people and an oppressive clerical leadership is not the same as taking action against Venezuela, a federal presidential republic that has previously worked cooperatively with the US. Trump continues to make comparisons between the two operations, despite their vast differences. After the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump went as far as involving himself in the selection of his successor. Iran and the US lack diplomatic relations, as anti-American sentiment has remained salient in the region for nearly half a century. Certainly, parallels to the Chilean coup in 1973 arise in the complicated relationship between Iran and the US. The Iranian coup in 1953 was led by the CIA, in which the main objective was to provide Britain with greater access to oil. Through covert actions, as demonstrated in Chile 20 years prior, the CIA effectively removed a democratically elected leader from power. The pattern is clear: the growing fear of leftist ideology and the US desire to maintain global hegemony.
President Trump calling upon the Iranian people to “take over your government,” is not a feasible task considering the instability of the country. It is unclear how Iranians should surrender and who exactly would take charge. Without an organized oppositional force, the Iranians do not have the capacity to overthrow a ruler, let alone an entire regime. This ambiguous message from President Trump encapsulates his lack of attention to the history of Iran’s deeply entrenched government and, more broadly, what it takes to build democracy in the first place. If change were to occur internally, Iranian citizens would have to actively speak out against the current regime, and those who have tried have been imprisoned or exiled. What the president does not realize is that efforts to overthrow the current regime will likely result in greater casualties, as there is simply not enough internal momentum to form a coalition.
Operation Epic Fury does not lessen or minimize the importance of international law. The international system has experienced stress before, and perhaps in recent years, it has become normalized for great powers to violate basic principles. The greater question at hand is how the international community will respond to such violations. President Trump has made it clear he is not planning to back off on foreign interventions—between his longstanding pursuit of Greenland and recent comments about taking Cuba. The president has previously exclaimed that he does not need international law; instead, he relies on his own morality. Evidenced by his illegitimate attacks in Venezuela and Iran, Trump’s sole concern has been and will continue to be the pursuit of national strength, accomplished by any means he deems necessary.
With shifting timelines of when exactly the war will end, President Trump has made no clear indication of how committed the US is to remaining involved in Iran. His objectives are increasingly unclear as his initial motivation was to dismantle a potential nuclear threat, but seemingly, this has transformed into a greater aspiration of toppling an entire regime. Whatever President Trump’s end goal may be, we should not anticipate an immediate internal revolt, as evidenced by a lack of civil resistance and varying ideological stances. Some political resistance may lessen the current repressive regime in Iran, but it is unlikely it will lose its structural integrity from imposed external forces such as the US military. A history of repeated failures in the Middle East does not bode well for a proposed regime change. Though it is unclear, it is probable that the Islamic Republic will endure. The regime’s growing hostility and resilience will likely persist, especially as US involvement wanes within the next several weeks, leaving Iran’s long-term stability in question.
Comments