Usually, it's accompanied with the idea of a land-grab to boot.
Yes, and don't forget the Veracruz Expedition of 1914, too. The bloody occupation of a neighboring country's chief commercial port would be enough to start most wars.There WAS an intervention against Mexico before WWI, during which the US Army, seeking to capture Pancho Villa, effectively occupied the entire northern section of America's southern neighbor.
Taft's ambassador to Mexico had a lot to do with setting up the situation, it's true (from trying to prop up Diaz's government down to essentially stage-managing Huerta's coup). That said, at least the first phase of the Mexican Revolution seems likely to happen; Diaz was vulnerable, and there was enough discontent and factionalism to start it off. I suppose a Huerta-less timeline might see Madero or someone else manage to stabilize things, but I'm dubious; there were plenty of other fires to put out....but would the situation that TR was fulminating about in the first place even have arisen if Woodrow Wilson had never been President and if instead TR had been President since 1913, or was in his *fourth* term with Taft never occupying the WH ?