The Purpose of Regime Intervention, 1815–2001

Abstract

This article is an examination of an understudied yet clearly significant international phenomenon: military intervention explicitly directed at regime change in a target state. The article argues that regime interventions are best understood not dyadically, but regionally. They are primarily attempts to stabilize regional interests of the intervening state. This hypothesis is tested through statistical analysis of intervention between 1815 and 2001. The statistical results indicate that regime interventions are marked by a strong connection between the intervening state and the target region and by direct instability within that region prior to the intervention. This finding calls into question the dyadic assumptions of much empirical work on international conflict; regional perspectives need to figure more prominently. This suggests, for example, that the 2003 invasion of Iraq is less about Saddam Hussein or direct access to Iraqi oil, but a signal of American commitment to the broader Middle East. This intervention, like most other regime interventions, is regionally motivated, not dyadic. Regime interventions occur when a region is undergoing instability and an intervening state believes it must signal commitment to regional stability. While interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan make sense within this context, similar actions in North Korea and Iran seem much less likely.