The United States has, at various times in its history, used military force to overthrow foreign governments. In recent years, however, there has been a growing scholarly consensus that these regime‐​change operations are often ineffective and produce deleterious side effects. Scholars have found that regime‐​change missions, whether trying to achieve political, security, economic, or humanitarian goals, do not succeed as envisioned. Instead, they are likely to spark civil wars; lead to lower levels of democracy; increase repression; and, in the end, draw the intervener into lengthy nation‐​building projects. Instead of promoting more democracy and advancing American security, forcible regime change undermines the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools. Such operations therefore ultimately harm America’s ability to achieve its policy goals. Come hear a panel of distinguished experts discuss the use of regime‐​change operations and its effect on U.S. foreign policy.

American sanctions target around two dozen countries, with some states experiencing what amounts to near total economic embargoes. Why are these policies in place, what effects do they have, and how successful are they in achieving their geopolitical objectives? In a new paper, Richard Hanania argues that policymakers’ willful ignorance of the empirical evidence showing that sanctions do not work, and their failure to combine economic coercion with diplomacy, strongly suggest that sanctions are enacted mainly for the sake of domestic political goals rather than to achieve foreign policy objectives.