While democracy and human rights are important, leaders who remain committed to promoting these values worldwide must focus on investing in non-military methods to effect policy change. It may be in the interest of the United States to support political liberalization and the promotion of human rights abroad, but through peaceful means and the support of civil society rather than the use of force. The use of unauthorized foreign policy instruments covertly, as well as overt efforts to overthrow foreign regimes, has undermined the legitimacy of such programs and caused many other countries to become skeptical of U.S. objectives. Moreover, the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy is profoundly influenced by its governmental structure and state resources. The diffusion of power is one of the most salient features of the U.S. policy-making process. High decentralization means that no single actor can dictate the country’s policies. The role of the United States as a major power in promoting peace and security is subject to examination. It is also a reality that a great power has its own specific limitations. Just as the Bush administration portrayed the United States as a country responsible for addressing threats and promoting democracy, the Obama administration realized the importance of securing the cooperation of partners and, at times, allowing them to take the lead. Trump, unusually, was committed to keeping the United States from engaging in this field. The findings of this dissertation indicate that, in many respects, U.S. strategy has favored regime change over behavioral change, and that the promise of reducing hostile actions in response to a change in behavior by other states has sometimes been used as a ruse to provoke countries into regime change. Alongside this, change policy has been employed as a traditional—though not constant—strategy in U.S. foreign policy.
Abad et al. (Wed,) studied this question.