Donald Trump’s attack on Venezuela reopens an old and well-known chapter in the relationship between the United States and its strategic environment: that of unbridled interventionism.
Faced with the impotence of actors like Brazil or Colombia, the immediate fate of the region is in the hands of the unstable American president. Of course, many will not regret the kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro, but the message from Washington is extremely clear.
It was conceived on December 5, during the launch of the new American national security strategy, a contradictory document which defends the end of power as policeman of the world while defending military interventions at will.
The chapter on the Western Hemisphere is the most striking: imitating what Theodore Roosevelt did in 1904, Trump put his name as a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which advocated American regional domination. In both cases, with the use of force.
This time, Trump was faithful to what he wrote, avoiding memes about Taco (Trump always yellow, in the English acronym) and creating new ones with his insistence on calling himself “the president of peace”, signaling that China and Russia, who have their feet firmly planted in Venezuela, must leave.
These rival powers have already sizzled, but their hands are as tied as those of their regional neighbors. Moscow, in particular, is more concerned with manipulating Trump’s support on its terms to mutilate Ukraine.
Other considerations are economic. While Xi Jinping has demonstrated strength around Taiwan, the last thing he wants is a direct confrontation with Trump, given the need for a mutually beneficial compromise.
The same thing applies, on another scale, to Lula. The PT member will complain about imperialism, but in addition to not having the means to intervene in the situation, he does not want to do so: he had already broken with Maduro in 2024, and has an electoral asset against Bolsonarism in his rapprochement with Trump.
In the worst situation are Colombia, already considered an enemy due to the voluntarism of left-wing President Gustavo Petro, and the Cuban dictatorship, guarantor of Chavismo. Here, Trump’s game is clear: if he controls the flow of oil from Venezuela to the communist island, the erosion of the Havana regime will increase.
It is still too early to say what will happen in Venezuela. From what we know so far, the operation was aimed at preventing an invasion: surgical airstrikes and, as happened in Panama in 1989, extraction of the rival leader using special forces.
It would not be surprising if all this was done with the connivance or assistance of sectors of the local dictatorship, in exchange for a survival deal. The image of helicopters flying over Caracas suggests an effective suppression of air defenses, but it could mean something else.
For Trump, this is a tempting option. If he wants to see María Corina Machado, Nobel Peace Prize winner, as president, he must face the reality left by Chavismo: a militarized and corrupt state.
There are approximately 2,000 general officers in Venezuela, twice as many as in the United States and five times as many as in Brazil. Similar to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, they are present at all levels of civilian life, openly criminal in many cases, such as involvement in drug trafficking.
But the United States learned its lesson when it tried to ban these people from public life during the 2003 invasion: it created a deadly insurgency and a military quagmire. There doesn’t even seem to be any willingness among Venezuelans in uniform to do this in 2026, but the easiest path for Trump will be to talk to them.
We must also measure the pulse of the streets. The first images after the announcement of Maduro’s capture in Caracas showed residents partying in their windows, which could encourage today’s Chavista general to become a pro-American Democrat tomorrow.
While the likely end of the dictatorship is good news on its face, the precedent set by Trump in the region is dangerous and signals an era of heightened regional volatility. As his new doctrine says, what we expect from governments here is collaborationism.
About The Author
