There is a paragraph on interactions in The Book of Why (Pearl & Mackenzie, 2018), Chapter 9 (I cannot share the page number because I have the book in epub format), where the authors argue that:
However, Equation 9.4 does hold automatically in one situation, with no apparent need to invoke counterfactuals. That is the case of a linear causal model, of the sort that we saw in Chapter 8. As discussed there, linear models do not allow interactions, which can be both a virtue and a drawback. It is a virtue in the sense that it makes mediation analysis much easier, but it is a drawback if we want to describe a real-world causal process that does involve interactions. [Emphasis mine]
The equation 9.4 is
$$\text{Total Effect = Direct Effect + Indirect Effect}$$
They repeated a similar argument before in Chapter 8:
On the other hand, linear models cannot represent dose-response curves that are not straight lines. They cannot represent threshold effects, such as a drug that has increasing effects up to a certain dosage and then no further effect. They also cannot represent interactions between variables. For instance, a linear model cannot describe a situation in which one variable enhances or inhibits the effect of another variable. (For example, Education might enhance the effect of Experience by putting the individual in a faster-track job that gets bigger annual raises.)[Emphasis mine]
And in Chapter 7:
Keep in mind also that the regression-based adjustment* works only for linear models, which involve a major modeling assumption. With linear models, we lose the ability to model nonlinear interactions, such as when the effect of X on Y depends on the level of Z. The back-door adjustment, on the other hand, still works fine even when we have no idea what functions are behind the arrows in the diagrams. But in this so-called nonparametric case, we need to employ other extrapolation methods to deal with the curse of dimensionality. [Emphasis mine]
Why Pearl & Mackenzie argue that linear models do not allow interactions? Do I overlook an important detail and context-specific information?
*By regression-based adjustment, authors refer to (in the preceding paragraphs), what we sometimes call, "controlling for" other variables: "The analogue of a regression line is a regression plane, which has an equation that looks like $Y=aX+bZ+c$ ... The coefficient $a$ gives us the regression coefficient of $Y$ on $X$ already adjusted for $Z$. (It is called a partial regression coefficient and written $r_{YX.Z}$.)"