When the United States forcibly removed Venezuela’s president and declared its intention to “run” the country, the move was framed as decisive leadership. To supporters, it looked like strength. To critics, it looked like something far more familiar — and far more dangerous. History is crowded with examples of powerful nations betting on regime change, convinced they can control the outcome. Most of those bets ended badly.
Now, America’s latest gamble in Venezuela risks reopening some of the darkest chapters of modern foreign policy.
A Show of Strength or a Dangerous Illusion?
Strongman politics thrives on bold gestures. Capturing a foreign leader, dismantling a hostile government, and promising order through force all project power. But power and control are not the same thing.
The decision to intervene directly in Venezuela signals a belief that the United States can reshape a complex nation through military dominance and administrative oversight. That belief has appeared before — in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Panama. Each time, confidence was high at the start. Each time, reality proved more stubborn.
Venezuela is not an empty board waiting for new pieces. It is a fractured society with deep political divisions, powerful armed groups, foreign interests, and a long history of resisting outside control. Removing one leader does not remove the system, the loyalties, or the grievances beneath him.
The Heavy Shadow of Regime Change History
The nightmares critics warn about are not theoretical. They are documented.
-
Iraq (2003): A swift military victory collapsed into years of insurgency, sectarian violence, and regional instability.
-
Libya (2011): The fall of Muammar Gaddafi left behind a failed state, rival militias, and a haven for traffickers.
-
Afghanistan (2001–2021): Two decades of occupation ended with the original regime returning to power.
-
Panama (1989): While often cited as a success, it still left long-term resentment and questions about sovereignty.
Each intervention was sold as necessary, temporary, and controlled. None unfolded as planned.
Venezuela carries many of the same warning signs: institutional collapse, economic desperation, armed factions, and foreign powers eager to exploit chaos.
Oil: The Uncomfortable Center of the Wager
Venezuela’s oil reserves hover over this intervention like a ghost no one can ignore. Public statements promising to “manage,” “secure,” or “revive” Venezuelan oil immediately revive suspicions of economic imperialism.
Even if framed as reconstruction or stabilization, controlling another nation’s natural resources strikes at the heart of sovereignty. For Venezuelans — regardless of political alignment — oil is not just revenue. It is national identity.
History shows that when interventions appear tied to resources, legitimacy collapses quickly. Local resistance hardens, global criticism intensifies, and the intervening power becomes trapped between security needs and moral credibility.
The wager assumes oil wealth can finance stability. More often, it finances resentment.
The Strongman Trap: Believing Force Equals Order
Strongman leadership tends to underestimate complexity. It favors clarity over nuance, decisiveness over patience. That approach can win headlines — and sometimes elections — but it struggles in nation-building.
Running a foreign country requires:
-
Trust from the population
-
Legitimacy in the eyes of the world
-
Institutions that outlast military presence
Force can remove a government. It cannot create consent.
Venezuela’s population has already endured years of hardship. If daily life worsens under foreign administration — through shortages, violence, or perceived humiliation — resistance will grow, not fade.
Latin America’s Memory Is Long
For much of Latin America, U.S. intervention is not abstract history. It is lived memory.
From coups to covert operations to economic pressure, the region has experienced decades of external influence justified as stability or anti-communism. Even governments that disliked Venezuela’s former leadership are uneasy about direct U.S. control.
This intervention risks uniting diverse political movements around a shared fear: that sovereignty can be suspended by force if Washington deems it necessary.
That fear does not disappear with elections or promises of transition.
Global Fallout: A Gift to Rivals
Strategically, the Venezuela wager may weaken the United States globally.
-
China and Russia gain rhetorical ammunition, portraying the U.S. as hypocritical on sovereignty.
-
Non-aligned nations may hedge away from U.S. partnerships.
-
International law norms erode when power replaces process.
Rather than isolating rivals, unilateral regime change often pushes countries closer together against the intervening power.
The Illusion of a “Temporary” Takeover
Nearly every intervention begins with the word “temporary.”
Temporary military presence
Temporary administration
Temporary control of resources
But temporary arrangements tend to stretch when conditions worsen — and conditions usually do.
Security demands expansion. Local allies demand protection. Political transitions stall. Withdrawal becomes risky. What was meant to be a short mission turns into an open-ended commitment.
Venezuela’s institutional collapse makes a clean exit unlikely. The stronger the U.S. grip becomes, the harder it will be to let go without chaos.
Legal and Moral Costs
Beyond strategy, the moral cost looms large.
Capturing a sitting head of state and asserting control over another nation without broad international backing tests the limits of global norms. Even those who despised Venezuela’s former leadership must confront an uncomfortable question:
If this can happen to Venezuela, who is next?
When rules bend for power, smaller nations notice — and fear replaces trust.
What Success Would Even Look Like
Supporters of the intervention speak of democracy, stability, and prosperity. But what defines success?
-
Elections under foreign supervision?
-
A pro-U.S. government protected by foreign troops?
-
Oil flowing smoothly while political tensions simmer?
True success would require Venezuelans themselves to accept the outcome as legitimate. History suggests that legitimacy imposed from outside rarely survives once the imposing force leaves.
A Bet With Asymmetric Risks
The wager in Venezuela is asymmetric.
For U.S. leadership, the political upside is immediate: strength, decisiveness, control.
For Venezuela, the risks are existential: sovereignty, stability, and national cohesion.
If the gamble fails, consequences will not be confined to one presidency or one country. They will ripple through the region, global energy markets, and international norms for years.
Conclusion: Power Can Start Wars, Not End Them
America’s strongman has placed a massive bet on Venezuela — one that assumes history will not repeat itself. But history has a stubborn way of returning when lessons go unlearned.
Regime change rarely produces clean outcomes. Control rarely brings consent. And force rarely delivers lasting peace.
Venezuela may yet find a better future, but it is far from certain that foreign domination — however confidently declared — will be the path that leads there.
The nightmares critics warn about are not exaggerations. They are precedents.
And precedents, once ignored, have a habit of becoming prophecy.
