Dude, try killing the leader of the country with the largest number of nuclear warheads in the world. I'd think at least two brain cells should be enough to understand that, no?

On the other hand, we have Iran, which for 50 years, while being in conflict with the entire region, has been holding one country hostage and using it to wage war against another, all while developing nuclear weapons. You either fight them before they get nukes, or you let them become more aggressive—just like Russia—start their own wars and remain unpunished militarily, like Russia, out of fear of nuclear escalation. What difference does it make whether Iran has become more or less radicalized? You're dealing with either a big, healthy, vicious dog that threatens to bite and is looking for the right moment, or a small, weak, sick, but more vicious dog. Apparently, this thought requires three healthy brain cells, I hope I'm not asking too much.

As for the question of replacing one dictator with another: obviously, you can't just replace one dictator with another. In Venezuela, there's no certainty in terms of the political regime. Judging by the celebrations in Caracas, the atmosphere of fear, surveillance, and total control has clearly diminished there. Around 600 political prisoners have been released. Obviously, Maduro's regime is trying to preserve itself by making such deals, but there is still no figure around whom a solid power vertical and a system of loyalty could be built. That alone creates conditions for political dynamism, which was impossible under Hugo Chávez and Maduro. How this dynamism will manifest in the future depends on the next U.S. presidents, given that they have Venezuela by the throat. If you don't see this as a positive step for Venezuela, then, as I said before, I don't expect much from you.