Gabbard Says US Abandons Regime Change Strategy, Focuses on Diplomacy
Tulsi Gabbard, the US intelligence chief, has stated that Washington has moved away from its traditional ‘regime change’ strategy, now prioritizing diplomacy and deal-making over nation-building.
Gabbard criticized the previous approach as counterproductive, draining resources and creating more enemies than allies. She noted that under President Donald Trump, the administration has shifted toward a more pragmatic and deal-driven foreign policy, emphasizing peace through diplomacy rather than interventionist nation-building strategies. Her comments come amid accusations from Venezuela and Iran that the US is still pursuing regime-change tactics, despite official statements suggesting a shift in strategy.
Her remarks were made during her speech at the 21st Manama Dialogue in Bahrain. During the event, Gabbard emphasized the need for the United States to adopt a more effective foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy and deal-making rather than military intervention and regime change. She also highlighted the importance of building alliances and partnerships with other nations to foster peace and stability.
Gabbard’s comments come amidst ongoing accusations from Venezuela and Iran that the US is still pursuing regime-change tactics. Venezuela accused the US president of plotting a coup, while Iran has previously accused Washington of trying to destabilize it through sanctions and covert actions. Despite these claims, Gabbard and the Trump administration have maintained that they are moving away from the old regime-change strategy and promoting a more diplomatic and pragmatic approach to foreign policy.
The Trump administration’s focus on diplomacy and deal-making has been a significant shift from previous US foreign policy approaches that often involved military interventions and regime change. Gabbard’s comments suggest that the administration is committed to this new approach, which prioritizes building peace through diplomacy rather than military intervention. Critics, however, argue that the administration’s pressure campaigns on Venezuela and Iran mirror the previous regime-change playbook, suggesting that the shift may not be as complete as officials claim.
In addition to the accusations from Venezuela and Iran, the US has also faced criticism from other countries for its foreign policy. The Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy has been criticized by some as being too isolationist and not sufficiently focused on global cooperation. However, Gabbard and the Trump administration have maintained that their approach is more effective and better suited to the current global landscape.
Gabbard’s comments and the Trump administration’s focus on diplomacy and deal-making represent a significant shift in US foreign policy. The administration is committed to building peace through diplomacy rather than military intervention, which represents a departure from the previous approach of regime change and nation-building. While critics argue that the administration is still pursuing similar tactics, the Trump administration maintains that they are making a concerted effort to shift towards a more diplomatic and pragmatic approach to foreign policy.
The future of US foreign policy will likely continue to be shaped by the Trump administration’s approach to diplomacy and deal-making. As the Trump administration continues to focus on building peace through diplomacy, it will be important to monitor whether this strategy is effective in achieving its goals and whether it can be sustained in the long term.