A hallmark of the Trump era is the open embrace of ideas and practices that have long been central to the fabric of US politics but have, at least in recent decades, often been publicly disavowed or discussed in slightly embarrassed, hushed tones. So it is with white supremacy, police brutality, and now, military coups in Latin America.

Venezuela is the primary target of current regime change discussions. Unlike the behind-the-scenes support the US gave to past actions — like the coup that toppled Salvador Allende forty-five years ago last week — US officials, including President Trump himself, have loudly and repeatedly proclaimed their willingness to use military force to topple Venezuela’s government.

In August 2017, Trump told reporters, “We have many options in Venezuela. And by the way, I’m not going to rule out a military option.” In June, reports surfaced that Trump had to be talked out of invading Venezuela by his own advisers and right-wing Latin American leaders, such as former Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos. Trump’s alacrity makes the recent New York Times’ revelation — that “the Trump administration held secret meetings with rebellious military officers from Venezuela over the last year to discuss their plans to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro” — unsurprising.

Rather more surprising is that the head of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, has joined Trump in calling for military action against Venezuela. In doing so Almagro has placed himself, and the OAS, to the right of Latin America’s conservative leaders. This development also underscores the OAS’s appalling hypocrisy. As AP notes, “For Almagro, the threat of military force is especially surprising given his condemnation of the region’s support for a U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 to remove a democratically-elected but pro-Cuban president.”

But while Trump’s (and Almagro’s) openness and ardency for overthrowing Venezuela’s government is new, the policy itself is not. Since at least 2001 various administrations have sought the same end — just a bit more quietly.

It should go without saying that the US should neither invade Venezuela nor support a military coup to oust its president. That it does not is a sad testament to the arrogance of US empire. But the fact that invading Venezuela is no longer a taboo subject also means it is more urgent than ever to spell out exactly why this is a repugnant and terrible idea.

There are three reasons why the US should keep its hands off Venezuela.

First, the US lacks any moral standing to tell or force other countries what to do. On what basis can a country that resembles an oligarchy more than a democracy (this according to top political scientists and former president Jimmy Carter) criticize other countries for flouting democratic norms? How can anyone believe that such concerns are the real reason for US actions in Venezuela when the US supports governments in countries like Saudi Arabia, Honduras, and Haiti that have atrocious records on electoral democracy and human rights? Is it possible for anyone to believe that the Trump administration truly cares about ordinary Venezuelans’ wellbeing given its profound disregard for the wellbeing of US citizens living in Puerto Rico, Detroit, and elsewhere?

Second, a US-backed coup in Venezuela would be illegal under international law, which prohibits any country from infringing upon another nation’s territorial sovereignty. Foreign interventions have been justified on the basis of “humanitarianism.” But the US cannot plausibly claim that it’s motivated by such concerns since US sanctions have worsened Venezuelans’ suffering — and in fact were designed to do so.

Third, the likelihood that a military coup would achieve the Trump administration’s purported goals of “restoring democracy” and “ending the humanitarian crisis” is vanishingly low. Two distinct outcomes are far more likely: one, the Maduro administration, and its more repressive and authoritarian tendencies, would be strengthened due to legitimate security concerns and the “rally round the flag” effect imperialist aggression often has; or two, a bloody civil war would erupt.