[sweezyjeezy]

I think one of the best arguments against US interventionalism when it comes to tyrants is just how 'variable' (let's say) the outcomes have been over the years. For every Panama, there's two or three Guatamalas, Irans or most recently Iraq. Generally the hard part is not the removal of the head of state, which for the US is usually pretty quick. It's what beurocratic structures remain functional and whether the power vacuum created brings something better and more robust, or just decades of violence.

[wrsh07]

I think Sarah Paine on dwarkesh has noted that it tends to go well when the countries already have fairly robust institutions and tends to go badly when they don't

As I'm not a historian, I can only note that it hasn't gone well recently even when multiple successive presidents want it to

[nonethewiser]

In Iraq/Afghanistan, the US dismantled the institutions and tried to build new ones.

In Venezuela, it appears they are simply moving the gun to the head of Maduro's replacement.