This is like a bad dream. This type of thinking that we can muscle in on an ally and call the shots on who the ally's legal representative should be has occurred before. We did it in Vietnam when JFK signed off on the assassination of South Vietnam's leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, by General Duong Van "Big" Minh. The net effect of that decision was to signal to other leaders in Southeast Asia that we were not dangerous allies to have around.
Prince Norodom Sihanouk, who was the leader of Cambodia at the time, took the logical next step and kicked all American advisors out of Cambodia. He then declared Cambodia to be a neutral party in the Vietnam War.
This was the key factor in turning the Vietnam War into the drawn out affair it become. Before Cambodia became neutral, the Ho Chi Minh trail didn't exist. After Cambodia became neutral, the front upon which the war was fought expanded by several orders of magnitude down the length of the border between Cambodia and Vietnam.
Put simply, without the Ho Chi Minh trail, North Vietnam would have had to fight a conventional war on a static East-West front with American air power being decisive due to a much reduced triple canopy cover that otherwise protected the Viet Cong's supply lines in Cambodia. As such, the front upon which the war was fought would have stablized in the early years of the war instead of in 1973 after Operation Linebacker and Operation Linebacker II had occurred.
The upshot of all this is that we should be very careful in interfering in the internal politics of allies who are at war with a mutual enemy. It is very hard to predict what the fallout will be when we engage in such activities and the consequences will almost always be bad because will be shown to be unreliable, even dangerous, allies who cannot be trusted.
we were dangerous allies to have around.