Regime change has gotten a bad rap, thanks to the Iraq War and its regional aftermath. But its advocates shouldn’t be quick to dismiss it.

In fact, it’s still possible to engage in regime-change operations that do good work for American interests. The key is in planning and supporting a transition to a democracy that can actually survive. That takes a strong bureaucracy and serious attention to what happens after the government falls.

Without these conditions, covert regime-change missions are destined for failure. They tend to produce blowback, associating the United States with dictatorships that suppress national aspirations and independence movements, while eroding international legitimacy and empowering revolutionary groups hostile to the United States.

Another reason to avoid regime-change missions is that they often undermine America’s own long-term interests. As scholars like Brian O’Rourke have argued, forcibly overthrowing foreign governments and installing supposedly pro-American leaders usually backfires. Imposed leaders are often unable to serve the needs of both their domestic and external audiences. They alienate the latter by taking actions that please the former, while their domestic supporters grow increasingly hostile to their patrons.

Some officials continue to favor regime change because of cognitive biases that lead them to focus on the desirability of the goals and ignore the full costs of the mission. The reality is that foreign-led regime-change initiatives rarely succeed, regardless of strategy. They frequently spark extended military operations and generate unintended consequences that far outweigh any short-term benefits.