While political consensus often exists against engaging in nation-building, the United States frequently finds itself involved in such efforts following military interventions to depose foreign governments. President Trump has managed to avoid direct nation-building so far, but his success raises fundamental questions about why these projects are initiated in the first place.

Strategic Options After Regime Change

When military action successfully topples a foreign regime, American political leaders typically confront three distinct courses of action. The first option involves actively helping to establish a viable successor government. Alternatively, leaders can overthrow the regime and leave the local population to sort out the resulting power structure.

The third path entails leaving certain elements of the previous regime in place, though this approach has proven unsatisfying in some instances. The U.S. has historically struggled with effectiveness when attempting the first option. However, simply withdrawing can create dangerous power vacuums, potentially allowing even more detrimental actors to seize control.

Examining Past Interventions

The third option can succeed if the remaining elements of the old government are sufficiently deterred and wish to avoid future conflict with Washington. This approach was somewhat mirrored in Venezuela, where the U.S. supported the removal of Nicolás Maduro from power, yet continued to engage with Delcy Rodríguez, who had served as vice president since 2018.

A similar scenario played out when the U.S. helped facilitate the removal of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia during the Clinton administration. However, there is no guarantee that the individuals with whom the U.S. negotiates will ultimately secure control of the country.

Experts caution that remnants of a deposed government might prove no better than their predecessors, or could even become further radicalized by U.S. military involvement. This concern is particularly acute regarding Iran, where some analysts suggest the Venezuela model may not be applicable.

The Consequences of Avoiding Nation-Building

The Obama administration attempted regime change in Libya by removing Muammar Gaddafi without committing to forming a new government, a strategy that drew ridicule at the time. Domestically, the consequences were relatively limited, apart from the major scandal surrounding the deadly attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi.

However, Libya subsequently descended into prolonged chaos, fostering terrorism, civil war, and a significant migration crisis that negatively impacted U.S. allies. In 2014, critics faulted the administration for abandoning Libya “without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order.”

The High Cost of Nation-Building: The Iraq Precedent

Nation-building was the primary factor that turned the Iraq War into a protracted and expensive conflict following the swift defeat of Saddam Hussein's forces. Before the 2003 invasion, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell invoked what became known as the Pottery Barn rule: “You break it, you buy it.”

According to reporter Bob Woodward, Powell warned President George W. Bush, “You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.”

Investing American resources and lives in a foreign nation inherently gives the U.S. a vested interest in that country's political trajectory, making nation-building seem appealing despite its inherent difficulty and the limited patience of domestic voters. While alternatives avoid “boots on the ground” and American casualties, they do not always yield the desired results.

This dynamic ensures that President Trump will face substantial pressure to engage in nation-building efforts in places like Iran, even as past failures contribute to his unique political appeal.