Daniel Immerwahr

But give it a shot.

Yeah.

Okay.

So let's just... Okay.

So first of all, it is always the fantasy of like post-90s US presidents that they can solve all their problems with airstrikes and with surgical strikes.

They can just go and do exactly what they want to, like precisely the people they want, and then they'll be out.

And that has not always happened.

That was George W. Bush's fantasy with Iraq and Afghanistan, and it famously was dashed against the rocks of reality.

I think a huge structural problem is that

Who's next?

What's next?

So if the administration of Venezuela is compliant enough with Trump that Trump sees no need to do as he threatened a second wave of attacks, then that's a massive legitimacy problem within Venezuela.

And so often these sort of people who are potentially supported, potentially opposed by the United States, these leaders, are in a really unstable position because if they comply with the United States, they have a huge problem with their base.

And if they pander to their base, then they might have a coup attempt.

So I think Venezuela was already in that position, but I think it is much more so now.

And so the odds that things spill really out of control, I think, have gone way up.

Daniel, from your political point of view, which is informed by, obviously, years and years of studying history, is foreign intervention, American intervention, ever justified?

So I think there are two questions.

One is, is it justified?

Meaning, you know, is the target a suitable target?