I think that US military intervention is a good idea for the following, in a rough order of importance: Iran, Cuba, Haiti.
Iran for all the reasons you described. The question is what happens next, and I have a very hard time believing that it's worse than what we have now. A peaceful transition seems unlikely with how deeply intertwined the IRGC is with the regime and current situation, so any intervention needs to take into account that the IRGC needs to go with them (the current Venezuelan situation is ... disappointing).
Haiti *is* a failed state, so it would really be a good idea to revive old efforts at building a coalition military force to go restore order. It won't be easy, but we literally can't make it worse and an Afganistan situation is extremely unlikely. But the ROI of such an endeavour is deeply negative, so it's really more a humanitarian effort than anything else.
Cuba is a long and complicated story, but basically I think the US really does need to clean up its back yard. Unlike Haiti, the state is actually effective, so intervention is tricky in a different way. It'll be really hard -- my 5-minute sketch of an idea is cobbling together enough of the Cuban diaspora in the US to build a semi-legitimate government after a brief military occupation. But unlike Haiti I think the ROI on this is positive after admittedly not much thinking about it.
It seems to me that Haiti is a case that can't easily be solved by intervention. It's not just a failed state because it's held back by a bad regime.
For Iran, there's a straightforward path to helping remove the regime. No occupation required.
For Cuba, I think the hope is that the loss of Venezuela will start the steep decline of that regime. Presumably, the Trump administration wouldn't be willing to occupy Cuba either.
I think that US military intervention is a good idea for the following, in a rough order of importance: Iran, Cuba, Haiti.
Iran for all the reasons you described. The question is what happens next, and I have a very hard time believing that it's worse than what we have now. A peaceful transition seems unlikely with how deeply intertwined the IRGC is with the regime and current situation, so any intervention needs to take into account that the IRGC needs to go with them (the current Venezuelan situation is ... disappointing).
Haiti *is* a failed state, so it would really be a good idea to revive old efforts at building a coalition military force to go restore order. It won't be easy, but we literally can't make it worse and an Afganistan situation is extremely unlikely. But the ROI of such an endeavour is deeply negative, so it's really more a humanitarian effort than anything else.
Cuba is a long and complicated story, but basically I think the US really does need to clean up its back yard. Unlike Haiti, the state is actually effective, so intervention is tricky in a different way. It'll be really hard -- my 5-minute sketch of an idea is cobbling together enough of the Cuban diaspora in the US to build a semi-legitimate government after a brief military occupation. But unlike Haiti I think the ROI on this is positive after admittedly not much thinking about it.
It seems to me that Haiti is a case that can't easily be solved by intervention. It's not just a failed state because it's held back by a bad regime.
For Iran, there's a straightforward path to helping remove the regime. No occupation required.
For Cuba, I think the hope is that the loss of Venezuela will start the steep decline of that regime. Presumably, the Trump administration wouldn't be willing to occupy Cuba either.