There is an alluring idea that anything – including illegal action – should be taken to protect people from dictators. It is that reasoning that some are tapping into to insist that American military strikes on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro are welcome. Legal or not, the man responsible for countless atrocities in Venezuela is gone. While no one should sympathize with the likes of Maduro, this view is indefensible. It is legally and morally wrong. More than that, it is dangerous.

Given U.S. President Donald Trump’s open disdain for the Iraq War – he called it a “big, fat mistake” that won’t be repeated – the parallels between American action in Venezuela to that of Iraq in 2003 are staggering. Back then, the Republican administration of George W. Bush lied by claiming that weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq to justify a military intervention. Claiming it was engaging in “pre-emptive self-defence”, Washington proceeded despite a lack of approval by the United Nations Security Council. At the time, many well-intentioned people believed that Iraqi dictator Sadaam Hussein, who had previously gassed thousands of civilians in Kurdistan to death, needed to be removed, regardless of whether international law permitted it or not.

What ensued wasn’t just the removal and execution of Hussein, but an illegal war, a bungled occupation marred by human rights abuses and war crimes, and a decision to mass-relieve the Iraqi military which later birthed the Islamic State terrorist group. Meanwhile, the cost of the war in dollars reached trillions. Its cost in death and destruction was even greater. America’s reputation has never recovered. Today, no respected international lawyer would claim the invasion of Iraq was legal or wise.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has claimed that its military strikes on Venezuelan drug dealers were lawful because it was at “war” with “narco-terrorists”. Trump has also made clear that the attacks on Venezuela, not unlike Iraq in 2003, are also motivated by oil; Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves in the world. When it comes to drugs, Venezuela is responsible for only a small fraction of the narcotics entering America. Still, in December, Washington designated some drugs, namely fentanyl (which Venezuela doesn’t produce), as ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Three weeks later, American forces removed Maduro from power. Now, in an eery parallel to Iraq, Washington says it will “run” Venezuela for the foreseeable future. Once again, some seem convinced that doing so was right because a dictator is no longer around to hurt citizens.

Some point to the fact that Venezuelans are rejoicing as proof that taking Maduro out was the right thing to do. Of course they are celebrating! Their oppressor is gone. That is not the same thing as suggesting that military violence imposed by a foreign state is legal or legitimate. It is not. In Libya, many celebrated the killing of Muammar Gaddfi in 2011 during a NATO military intervention. But no one now celebrates the violent divisions, atrocities, and disarray that have since marred the country.

Even if states like Canada, the UK, and others lack the spine, let alone elbows, to say so, American actions in Venezuela are an unambiguous violation of the UN Charter’s prohibitions on the unilateral use of force. This is, emphatically, not a case of self-defence, and Washington didn’t even attempt to make its case to the UN Security Council.

The attacks also create a dangerous power vacuum. When ‘bad guys’ are removed, there is an assumption that whoever follows will be better. But it is just that – an assumption. Sometimes who you get next is worse. Or, as Janina Dill puts it: “Bombing countries for the sake of democracy is illegal, rarely works, causes long term instability in the country and the region, and helps unravel the hard-won prohibition on the use of force in international law.”

So, what is the alternative? Surely it is not keeping dictators and despots in power where they can steal from their people and violate their citizens’ rights. Indeed, it is not.

People can – and should – be able oppose dictatorship and drug trafficking while also opposing violations of international law, human rights violations, kidnapping, the theft of national and natural resources, actions of aggression and illegal war, as well as violent regime change What the United States is doing in Venezuela is all of the above.

Dictatorships are best excised through the will of the people that such authoritarian regimes oppress, not by the violence of foreign powers eager to trample on the basic rules of international law. To get to that outcome, states need to foster the self-determination of oppressed people by: funding opposition groups and human rights defenders; demanding and actively supporting investigations and accountability efforts into atrocity crimes; effectively tackling graft and corruption; and ensuring that regimes are marginalized from the illicit financial markets that keep them afloat. All of these efforts can be done while not only respecting but promoting international law.

We can now hope that forcible regime change in Venezuela will buck the trend of military actions causing more, not less suffering, and more, not less democracy. But we cannot abandon international law simply to get rid of governments we don’t like. Doing so leaves every country and their people vulnerable to similar aggression, including democracies. Just ask Ukraine.

Venezuelans are finally free of the dictator that long denied them their rights and basic freedoms. Let us hope that they, along with states with enough courage, will insist that the days to come are defined by adherence to international law and not its continued desecration by Washington.