New methods for regime change
In the past decades regime changes were done by direct military interventions or CIA sponsored military coups. If we take the military coup against democratically elected Salvadore Allende's government in Chile in 1970s it was followed by months of destabilisation by rightwing unions etc. However in the modern world it is more difficult to overthrow progressive or non conformist regimes by old methods. So new methods have been developed by U.S and it's allies.
Since Obama came to power many regimes have been changed. Honduras, Libya, Maldives, Paraguay . There are also regime change efforts going on in Syria and Iran. Tunisia and Egypt underwent leadership changes. On the paper it looks as if U.S has nothing to do with these changes and they are internal matters. That is how Allende's coup was explained in 1970s as an internal matter.
In all these changes new methods have been adopted. In the case of Honduras, Maldives and Paraguay , judiciary and congress played major roles in removing popular elected leaders and restore the ruling elite back to power. This is contrary to the misconception that judiciary is an independent body from the bourgeoise. Executive, legislative and Judiciary are all execution arms of the bourgeoise. They play their respective allocated roles in maintaining the bourgeoise control. Independence of Judiciary is a myth propogated by the ruling class. When bourgeoise resorts to dictatorship judiciary plays the cushioning role. Thus it is seen to be progressive force. Reality is different. If we take Spain and Italy where prosecutors played supposedly progressive role in exposing crimes against humanity, the same prosecutors have ended up now as war crimes prosecutors for ICC in Hague to prosecute leaders who did not toe the imperialist line.
Whenever one of the executive arms is disturbed by a progressive or non conformist leader then the remaining arms combine to get rid of them. E.g Zelaya, Lugo and Naseed were elected leaders of their respective countries. They were elected with a popular mandate to make basic changes. i.e land reform or reform of the crony capitalism. When they tried to effect the changes they were removed by the combination of the congress and judiciary. In the case of Zelaya and Nasheed judiciary sacked them and congress with the help of military implemented the sacking. In Lugo's case it is other way round. In all the cases it looks that U.S has nothing to do with reginme change. In reality U.S is in cohorts with local bourgeoise(which is comprador) to effect the changes.
In the case of Egypt , Tunisia and Yemen , U.S puppets were removed in the face of popular revolts and replaced with new faces. In egypt U.S supports Muslim brotherhood , Military and so call liberals. All three of them are differnt alternatives to be presented in the face of popular revolt. One should not forget Muslim brotherhood in the middle east has been financed and backed by CIA against nationalist leaders like Nasser. Currently MB is allowed assumed the presidency while other arms of the bourgeoise are under the control of military financed by U.S . If MB does not toe U.S line then other two arms will be combined to remove Mursi. However Mursi is expected to be molded into a conformist like Erdogan in Turkey. Islamist Erdogan is currently the leader of the NATO effort to overthrow Syrian regime. However Russian protection of their only ally in middle east has throw spanner into Nato plans.
Obama has achieved far more than any recent U.S Presidents in effecting regime changes. Gaddafi and Bin Ladin have been eliminated. Syrian regime is under stress. In Latin America Zelaya and Lugo removed. Unfortunately for Obama , U.S ruling class is not satisfied until all the progressive and non conformist leaders are removed.