President Donald Trump’s threats demonstrate that the U.S. has failed to absorb the lessons from almost a quarter-century of Middle East missteps, where the record starkly shows that overthrowing governments creates more problems than it resolves.

Using force to topple the Maduro government could lead to the collapse of Venezuela itself and trigger instability within our hemisphere.

The Trump Administration has intensified its pressure campaign against Maduro. A buildup of U.S. military assets commenced in the Caribbean in August, followed by an announcement of a strike on a suspected drug vessel near Venezuela’s coast the next month. These strikes have continued even with scant U.S. evidence linking the boats to narcotics trafficking, and in October Trump suggested the CIA is running clandestine missions within Venezuela.

Subsequently, on Nov. 21, Trump reportedly spoke with Maduro and delivered an ultimatum for him to depart Venezuela within days. The following week, Trump designated the Maduro-linked Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization, hinted at striking Venezuelan territory “very soon,” and on Dec. 10, the U.S. intercepted an oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast.

According to officials who spoke with CNN, the Trump Administration is also developing contingency plans for a post-Maduro scenario.

It remains uncertain whether Trump’s maneuvers are strategic bluffs to pressure Maduro into stepping down or authentic steps toward a military assault. However, if repeating an action while anticipating a different outcome is insanity, then pursuing regime change in Venezuela is irrational, considering Washington’s past failures.

In Afghanistan, it required only a brief initial campaign, supported by Afghan rebels, to oust the Taliban after they refused to surrender 9/11 architect Osama bin Laden. Yet the conflict devolved into a two-decade occupation that peaked at a significant scale and did not succeed in establishing a stable democracy.

In Iraq, the primary combat phase to remove Saddam Hussein was swift, but American troops engaged in counter-insurgency warfare for nearly nine years before pulling out in 2011. By 2014, U.S. forces returned to combat the Islamic State after it captured large portions of Iraq, with a contingent still deployed there.

Collectively, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars resulted in thousands of American fatalities (and vastly more Iraqi and Afghan casualties), consumed trillions of dollars, and undermined the credibility of large-scale invasion as a tool for regime change.

The Trump Administration might think it can employ limited force to quickly depose Maduro with minimal cost, sidestepping the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military presence in the Caribbean—comprising a substantial number of troops, plus aircraft, missiles, drones, and support equipment—appears positioned for such action. Interpreting these deployments suggests an immediate focus on airstrikes and special forces raids against the regime, with the potential for escalation.

History offers cautionary tales for this approach as well. In 2011, airstrikes by the U.S. and its allies helped overthrow Muammar Gaddafi’s government in Libya with few coalition losses. However, the collapse of the Libyan state led to prolonged instability. This chaos turned Libya into a hub for human traffickers, and the country remains fractured and persistently near the brink of renewed civil war.

It is important to note that Maduro is widely disliked and Venezuela’s armed forces are weak. Nevertheless, this does not assure the regime’s downfall or the peaceful emergence of a stable government after him.

The geographical buffer has spared the U.S. the most severe consequences of its Middle East wars, but similar turmoil in Latin America would inevitably affect the United States directly. The paradox is that Trump’s policies could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, exacerbating the issues of migration and drug trafficking he claims to address.

Venezuela differs from the Middle East, with generally peaceful borders and a history of democracy. However, its vast oil reserves subject it to the same “resource curse” that has promoted conflict, dictatorship, and unrest in the Middle East. Forcibly removing Maduro, rather than allowing for an internal transition, is a hazardous bet that could draw the U.S. into another prolonged conflict—with greater risks because of its proximity.

While Maduro is a dictator, the dangers of forcibly removing him are significant. It is understandable that a large majority of the American public opposes military intervention. During his campaign, Trump vowed to conclude endless wars, not initiate new ones. An attack on Venezuela would violate that promise and ultimately harm American interests.