honest question that seems more pointed than it is: how many anti-CCP/China posts did the CIA sponsor last year?
Here's one of the most interesting deceptive phenomenon that almost all the modern human failed to detect. That's why the states have so many headaches and will continue to have more headaches.
A rational politician should control his/her own strong desire from ideology(i.e. eager to spread the value of democracy/universal human rights all over the world) to avoid the "huge headache". But the reality is irrational politicians driven by their strong belief pretend to be rational so others think their decision is based on reasoning.
A famous example as I mentioned in another post is Mr.Obama blamed G.W.Bush, who created headache of Iraq with a naive view that he was doing good thing to Iraqis, but Obama created Libya headache by himself. What he criticized Bush in words is just a way of showing he had a better judgement and more reasonable than Bush so he can win in election. His behavior shows there's little difference.
Another example is Politicians like to talk "US interests". Most people might not think of the WORD is just a way to show other people they are rational. Their behavior not always really align with US interest.
Next time when you hear a politician saying "A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache and against US interest", don't be so confident they are the same as you. Politicians are special specie extremely good at creating wrong impression to other people.
Obama is very different from GW Bush.
There aren't any huge ideological battles going on these days, the cold war is over, and the big baddies for us to face are failed states and terrorism, both of which would thrive in a more unstable China. Heck, our worst nightmare is Russia imploding. I bet they lift up on sanctions soon just because of that.
Operations like spying, funding social unrested in other countries are not necessarily under the mission of regime change. they are more like insurance. take China for example, what if its economy suddenly sinked and President Xi had no choice but to start a war against Japan/Taiwan/...? In these nightmare scenarios, groups of unrest with strong connections to USA govt. would become handy, if not crucial. I bet every major powers have hundreds of nightmare scenarios, and each of them has various `assets` requirements presented to the congress/presidents/chairmen, with a dotted bottom line: "hope for the best and prepare for the worst."
I'm not sure how making a destabilized China even less stable would improve the situation, nor do I think this insane theory is a part of the USA's security doctrine. The USA's biggest form of security is its huge unmatchable military, if things get bad with an established country, they just blow things up for awhile. The danger is if that country falls apart into a bunch of factions that cannot be targeted via conventional warfare.
Put this way: gulf war 1, Iraq invaded Kuwait, we easily take them out. But we don't dismantle their government because...that would make the problem much worse and our military much less effective (good at taking out countries, not so much in taking out terrorists, Isis, etc...). Gulf war 2: the son is not as smart as the father, goes too far, screws us for a decade+ in an unwinnable war. Sadam Hussein as an intact power was much easier to deal with than the vacuum that now exists.
So if something bad happens with China, there will probably be a good gulf-war-1 style spanking involved, but not with the goal to destroy China, depose its government, and make the situation much much worse. No one in the USA gov hated Gaddaffi enough to want him out at the cost of a destabilized Lybia (it was the lybians themselves who wanted him out).
The enemy you know (and can easily bomb) is much better than the enemy you don't know.
So sanctions don't help but also don't hurt. When Putin ends or nukes the fridge is when all the fun will start.