Introduction

The reported capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by US forces on January 3 has triggered intense global debate over the return of overt American interventionism. The episode signals a significant shift in US foreign policy, reviving the long-dormant Monroe Doctrine and raising serious questions about sovereignty, resource politics, and stability in Latin America. Venezuela, with its vast oil reserves and fractured political landscape, has once again become a focal point of great-power intervention.

Background: The Monroe Doctrine Revisited

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, originally aimed to prevent European colonial interference in the Western Hemisphere. While framed as an anti-colonial principle, the doctrine gradually evolved into a tool that justified US political and military interventions across Latin America.

Historically, between 1898 and 1994, the United States intervened at least 41 times in Latin American countries to influence or change governments, often under the pretext of safeguarding democracy or countering ideological threats. Over recent decades, US administrations largely avoided explicitly invoking the doctrine. However, President Donald Trump has openly revived and rebranded it as a cornerstone of American foreign policy, marking a sharp departure from post–Cold War restraint.

Trump’s Policy U-Turn and Military Assertiveness

Donald Trump initially positioned himself as a critic of foreign wars, frequently condemning the 2003 Iraq invasion and promising to end “forever wars.” However, the Venezuela operation reflects a clear policy reversal.

The intervention aligns with a broader pattern of escalating US military assertiveness over the past year, including:

• Airstrikes in Syria and Nigeria
• Threats of intervention during unrest in Iran
• Operations against Iranian nuclear facilities
• Actions targeting drug-trafficking routes in the Caribbean
• Strikes against Houthi forces in Yemen, militants in Somalia, and extremist groups in Iraq

Together, these actions suggest a renewed reliance on unilateral military power, with Venezuela representing the most explicit assertion of hemispheric dominance.

Why Venezuela? The Oil Imperative

Venezuela’s strategic importance is inseparable from its energy resources. The country possesses the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, estimated at over 300 billion barrels, roughly one-fifth of global reserves, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Despite this immense potential, Venezuela produces only about 1 million barrels per day, accounting for merely 0.8% of global oil output. Years of sanctions, mismanagement, and infrastructure decay have crippled its energy sector.

Significantly, Chevron remains the only major foreign oil company with exposure to Venezuelan crude, giving US corporate interests a unique stake. President Trump has openly stated that the US would take control of Venezuela’s oil reserves and deploy American companies to invest billions of dollars to refurbish the country’s oil infrastructure and increase production.

Criticism and Allegations

Critics argue that the intervention is less about democracy and more about control over strategic resources. Many have described the move as “outright resource appropriation,” suggesting that oil lies at the heart of Washington’s actions.

Analysts also note that foreign intervention may serve domestic political objectives—diverting attention from internal challenges while projecting strength abroad. Such motivations echo past US interventions, where economic and strategic interests overshadowed humanitarian rhetoric.

Political Fallout in Latin America

The revival of Monroe-style interventionism has generated unease across Latin America. For many countries, the doctrine symbolizes historical exploitation rather than protection. Trump’s alignment with right-leaning governments in the region and opposition to left-wing leadership has further deepened ideological divides.

The intervention risks destabilizing regional diplomacy, encouraging counter-alliances, and undermining norms of sovereignty and non-interference enshrined in international law.

Domestic Pushback in the United States

Ironically, Trump’s Venezuela move has also unsettled his own MAGA support base, which backed him on promises of ending overseas entanglements. His suggestion that US teams would help “run the country” during a transition has raised fears of prolonged American involvement, contradicting his earlier anti-intervention stance.

This mirrors Colin Powell’s famous warning during the Iraq War: “If you break it, you own it.” Regime change carries long-term responsibilities that can entangle the intervener in prolonged instability.

Venezuela’s Uncertain Endgame

The path forward for Venezuela remains unclear. Questions persist over whether the US will:

• Occupy the country directly
• Support a US-backed leadership in Caracas
• Or attempt a rapid political transition without boots on the ground

Political uncertainty is compounded by the disputed 2024 elections, claims by opposition leader Edmundo González, the sidelining of María Corina Machado, and resistance from figures such as Delcy Rodríguez. With deep internal divisions and oil revenues at stake, the risk of prolonged instability remains high.

Conclusion

The US intervention in Venezuela represents more than a single foreign policy decision—it marks a revival of doctrine-driven interventionism rooted in strategic dominance and resource security. While framed as a move to restore stability, the operation raises serious concerns about sovereignty, regional peace, and the future role of the United States in global governance.

As history has repeatedly shown, interventions justified by doctrine often produce unintended consequences. Whether Venezuela becomes a case of strategic success or another cautionary tale will depend on how responsibly power is exercised in the weeks ahead.