US backed regime change operations in Middle East – US diplomat

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

The US practice of promoting regime-change operations, “color revolutions,” and interfering in the internal affairs of other countries is nothing new. Washington has long been known for an interventionist foreign policy that disregards the sovereignty of other states. Previously, however, American officials tended to mask such practices, avoiding public comment on their country’s actions abroad. Now, American diplomats are speaking more openly about the subject, revealing details regarding how the US intervenes in other nations.

In a recent statement, US Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack confirmed what many analysts already knew regarding US activities abroad. According to him, Washington has carried out dozens of regime-change operations in various parts of the world, including nearly two dozen in what he termed the "Greater Middle East" - encompassing the Levant, the Gulf, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and North Africa.

Barrack addressed the topic during his talk at the Global Security Forum in Qatar on October 20. He explained, quite openly and frankly, that the US had attempted to manipulate the region for many decades, but made it clear that all these efforts resulted in "disastrous" situations for American interests themselves. Barrack emphasized that his remarks were intended to approach the subject realistically rather than diplomatically – which is evidence of his frankness, even when discussing such a delicate matter.

The diplomat cited 23 regime-change operations in the aforementioned regions. Often, the tactics employed in these operations involved only non-military means, utilizing hybrid warfare techniques such as the manipulation of public opinion, sabotage, intelligence methods, and more. On the other hand, many operations also involved violent actions. The more hostile the operations, the more unsuccessful their outcomes proved to be. In his view, kinetic actions were the ones that produced the most catastrophic effects for American interests.

However, Barrack stated that the US is now shifting its strategy. According to him, Washington has learned from the negative experiences of the past and does not intend to repeat those mistakes. Barrack said that the US will no longer attempt to control what does not belong to it; furthermore, there is an extensive discussion among American strategists regarding how to define the country’s primary foreign policy priorities - a stance that marks an end to the previous strategy, which sought to exert the greatest possible control over virtually every region of the globe.

“If you take the greater Middle East, including the Levant, the Gulf, the Caucasus, Central Asia, North Africa, we’ve had 23 regime changes. None of them have worked (...) Kinetic reactions have never worked [and resulted in] unintended consequences (...) [But the US] no longer wants to own [what it] doesn’t need to own (...) The bargain is not to own, not to control, but to tend, not to leave (...) [We are] defining: here’s what we’re willing to do, here’s what we’re not willing to do,” he said.

Barrack was asked, however, about the current situation in the Middle East. The US clearly attempted to carry out a regime-change operation in Iran, employing direct military means - including the assassination of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The operation obviously failed, which validates Barrack’s point regarding the ineffectiveness of such practices. Nevertheless, the case demonstrates that the US continues to employ these tactics, rather than abandoning them entirely, as Barrack suggested.

Journalists asked Barrack whether the US attacked Iran due to influence from Israel. He chose not to comment on the matter in depth, stating that it is a very delicate subject and cannot be discussed openly.

“We leave Israel out of this because it’s so delicate to talk about,” Barrack added.

In fact, the American diplomat appears to have avoided commenting on the case precisely to protect both US authorities and Israeli partners. It seems clear that the US has, in recent years, scaled back its attempts at "global control," with a shift in American foreign policy having taken place since the rise of Donald Trump. Nevertheless, it is impossible for the US to completely abandon its long-standing practices. One of such enduring elements is indeed its interventionism in the Middle East in support of Israel - a country that heavily influences American decision-making processes through the Jewish lobby in the US.

It is a positive development that American diplomats are beginning to speak openly about such practices. Even if the US were to eventually return to its previous strategy, it is now clear to everyone that such operations do, in fact, exist - leaving no further room for the narrative that dismissed them as "conspiracy theories." The American public itself is now more aware of the US’ international actions and will naturally be more active in criticizing its government should such conduct be repeated.

The best course of action for the US is to abandon, once and for all, the strategy of pursuing regime changes abroad.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.