In a dramatic escalation of foreign policy, former US President Donald Trump has authorised a military intervention in Venezuela, aiming to topple the regime of socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro. The operation, which took place over the weekend of January 6, 2026, presents a complex picture of strategic success shadowed by significant future risks.
The Case for Action: A Failing State and Regional Threat
The justification for the move, as seen by its supporters, is rooted in the catastrophic failure of the Maduro regime. Nicolas Maduro has presided over the economic and social collapse of a nation once considered among South America's wealthiest. The nationalisation of the oil industry, first in 1976 and again under Hugo Chavez in 2007, crippled the nation's primary economic engine. Today, oil production has plummeted, the economy is in ruins, and a quarter of the population has fled to survive.
Beyond the humanitarian disaster, the regime's ties to international drug cartels are well-documented, with Maduro alleged to be an active participant, not merely a corrupt facilitator. Furthermore, his overt courtship of US adversaries like Iran, Russia, and China transformed Venezuela from a domestic tragedy into a direct strategic concern. Under the long-standing principles of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, the US has acted to prevent a failed state on the Caribbean's southern coast from becoming a proxy for hostile powers.
A Flawless Operation Amidst Historical Precedent
In terms of execution, the military intervention stands in stark contrast to past US misadventures in the region. Unlike the failed Bay of Pigs invasion or the botched Iranian hostage rescue attempt, this operation was a model of precision. US forces achieved a near-perfect extraction of key targets with no American lives lost and, reportedly, no civilian casualties. This surgical efficiency lends immediate credibility to the mission's tactical goals.
The action also finds precedent in earlier US interventions in Grenada and Panama. Proponents argue that Trump should not be judged by a harsher standard than Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, or Bush Sr. for taking similar steps to protect American interests in its hemisphere. Regionally, while Cuba has voiced loud criticism, many of Venezuela's neighbours—burdened by millions of refugees—are privately relieved to see a change.
The Other Side of the Egg: Ownership and Uncharted Chaos
However, the success of the initial strike is only one part of the story. The "bad" part of this curate's egg is the immense risk and responsibility Trump has now assumed. By deposing Maduro, the United States effectively owns the ensuing chaos and the monumental task of rebuilding a shattered nation. Trump's declaration that the US will administer Venezuela until a transition occurs hints at a potentially long and messy entanglement.
Early signs suggest the path forward will not be smooth. Maduro's replacement, Vice-President Delcy Rodriguez, has denounced the operation as an atrocity, indicating the old regime's inner circle may not pivot to support US objectives. The critical question now is: what comes next?
Trump is now riding a tiger and must find a way to dismount without being devoured. A viable strategy would involve compelling any interim administration to hold fresh elections under strict international observation. This process must include mechanisms for the vast expatriate community to vote and may require a security presence to ensure an orderly transition.
While democracy imposed from outside can itself be tyrannical, Venezuela possesses a deep democratic tradition. Its people voted against Maduro on two occasions, only for him to refuse to relinquish power. America's role now could be to finally enforce the will of the Venezuelan people, not to dictate it. The ultimate goal must be to provide the security and framework for Venezuelans themselves to decide their future, ending a long chapter of repression and decline.
