Trump Builds His Empire on Venezuelan Oil: The World Holds Its Breath

Strong Condemnation from Moscow and Beijing

Venezuela’s two main international allies, Russia and China, reacted vehemently to the U.S. intervention, denouncing what they consider a flagrant violation of international law and Venezuelan sovereignty. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement strongly condemning the U.S. strikes, asserting that the pretext cited by the Trump administration for attacking Venezuela was unfounded and that, if reports of Maduro’s capture were true, the U.S. action constituted an “unacceptable act of aggression” against Venezuela’s sovereignty. Moscow reaffirmed its solidarity with the Venezuelan people while refraining from more forcefully challenging the United States, perhaps due to the pressure campaign the Trump administration has been waging against the Venezuelan leadership for several months now.

China, for its part, stated that it “firmly opposed” the U.S. action, which it condemned as a violation of international law. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Beijing was “deeply shocked” by what it called Washington’s “blatant use of force” against a sovereign state, arguing that this action infringed upon Venezuela’s sovereignty and threatened peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean. Against the backdrop of already tense geopolitical relations between Washington and Beijing, this intervention in Venezuela risks further exacerbating Sino-American relations, at a time when China has been seeking for years to expand its economic influence in the region through massive investments and trade agreements with countries such as Venezuela.

I have mixed feelings about these Russian and Chinese condemnations. On the one hand, they seem hypocritical coming from two powers that have never hesitated to violate the sovereignty of other nations when it suited their interests—Russia in Ukraine, China with its aggressive territorial claims in Asia… But on the other hand, their rhetoric about respect for international law rings with a certain truth, even if it is applied selectively. It is as if the world has become a vast theater of hypocrisy where each actor plays their role according to their interests of the moment, without any real moral conviction. And we, the spectators, must make do with this cacophony of condemnations and contradictory justifications.

Mixed Reactions from Latin America

The response of Latin American countries to the U.S. intervention in Venezuela has been far from unanimous, reflecting the deep divisions within the region over the issue of the Chavista regime. On one hand, left-wing governments traditionally allied with Venezuela, such as Cuba and Nicaragua, have condemned the U.S. action in the strongest terms. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel called the U.S. action “state terrorism” and called for urgent international intervention. This reaction is partly explained by Havana’s economic dependence on Venezuelan oil, as Cuba faces its most severe economic crisis since the fall of the Soviet Union. Any major disruption in Venezuelan oil production risks exacerbating an already disastrous situation for the Cuban economy.

On the other hand, several of Trump’s allies in Latin America have praised the U.S. operation. Argentine President Javier Milei hailed Maduro’s capture as a victory for freedom, while Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele expressed his support on social media. Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa described the action as a blow to Venezuela’s “narco-Chavista” structures. These reactions highlight the ideological divide that persists in the region between progressive governments—which view the U.S. intervention as a return to the “big stick” of Yankee imperialism—and conservative governments—which see it as an opportunity to liberate Venezuela from an authoritarian regime that has plunged the country into a humanitarian crisis unprecedented in recent years.

This division in Latin America breaks my heart in a way. How is it possible that the same action can be perceived as liberation by some and as an imperialist invasion by others? The answer, of course, lies in the ideological lenses through which each country views reality. Milei sees a triumph of freedom; Díaz-Canel sees state terrorism. Two parallel realities that cannot converge, as they are based on fundamentally incompatible worldviews. And meanwhile, the Venezuelan people, caught in the crossfire between these contradictory interpretations, continue to suffer as they await an uncertain future.

The Caution of European Powers

European leaders have reacted with notable caution to U.S. intervention in Venezuela, seeking to balance their principled support for the Venezuelan opposition with their commitment to respecting international law. French President Emmanuel Macron stated that any transition must be “peaceful, democratic, and respectful of the will of the Venezuelan people.” In a separate message, he noted that he had spoken with opposition leader María Corina Machado and that she could count on France’s support for a peaceful and democratic transition. This French position seeks to reconcile support for Venezuelan democracy with respect for international norms governing relations between states.

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer declined to say whether the strikes violated international law, telling the BBC that he was awaiting the facts and describing himself as a “lifelong advocate of international law.” He clarified that the United Kingdom was neither involved nor consulted and expressed hope that opposition figure Edmundo González Urrutia could lead a transition. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, for his part, stated that the legality of the operation was “complex,” emphasizing that international law must apply and warning that political instability in Venezuela must be avoided. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that the EU supported a “peaceful and democratic transition” in Venezuela but refrained from criticizing the U.S. attack.

This European caution strikes me as chronically indecisive. Europe, once again, seems incapable of taking a clear stance, caught between its principles and the reality of the global balance of power. “The legality is complex,” says Merz. “I’m waiting for the facts,” says Starmer. Meanwhile, the facts are right there, crystal clear: a foreign head of state was kidnapped by a militarily superior power and transported to the United States to be tried under U.S. law. This isn’t “complex”—it’s unprecedented and terrifying. Europe should have the courage to call things as they are, instead of hiding behind diplomatic euphemisms that fool no one.

The World’s Largest Reserves

U.S. interest in Venezuela cannot be understood without taking into account the extraordinary geological reality of this South American country. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, estimated at 303 billion barrels according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, representing approximately one-fifth of the world’s total reserves. This unprecedented wealth has long been coveted by major powers, and the U.S. intervention in January 2026 appears to be the culmination of a strategy aimed at securing this major strategic asset for U.S. interests. Trump explicitly mentioned during his press conference that major U.S. oil companies would establish a presence in Venezuela to renovate a severely deteriorated oil infrastructure—a process that experts estimate could take years.

Venezuela’s potential for oil production is commensurate with its reserves: the country currently produces only about one million barrels of oil per day, representing approximately 0.8% of global crude oil production. This striking contrast between the country’s enormous potential and its current meager production can be attributed to several factors. International sanctions against the Venezuelan government and a deep economic crisis have contributed to the decline of the country’s oil industry, but a lack of investment and maintenance has also played a major role, according to the EIA. U.S. administration of the country could potentially turn Venezuela into a much more significant oil supplier and create opportunities for Western oil companies, while serving as a new source of production.

When I hear Trump talk about U.S. oil companies that are going to “renew” Venezuela’s infrastructure, I can’t help but think it’s like a burglar breaking into a house and saying he’s going to “renovate” the place. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, and the United States has literally just seized them by military force. This is outright plunder, dressed up in humanitarian and democratic justifications. And the worst part is that everyone knows it, everyone sees it, and no one seems able to stop this imperialist juggernaut in its tracks.

Heavy Oil: A Technical Challenge

Venezuelan oil has specific characteristics that make it both valuable and difficult to extract. It is heavy, sulfur-rich crude, which requires special equipment and a high level of technical expertise to process. The United States, the world’s largest oil producer, has light, low-sulfur crude, which is excellent for producing gasoline but not much else. Heavy, sulfur-rich oil like Venezuela’s is crucial for certain products produced during the refining process, including diesel, asphalt, and fuels for factories and other heavy equipment. This complementarity between U.S. and Venezuelan oil resources partly explains Washington’s major strategic interest in the South American country.

Unleashing Venezuela’s oil potential could be particularly beneficial for the United States: Venezuela is close by, and its oil is relatively inexpensive. However, restoring Venezuela’s oil infrastructure poses a colossal challenge. Years of underinvestment, mismanagement, and sanctions have severely degraded the country’s production and refining facilities. Experts estimate that it will take years, if not decades, and massive investments to bring Venezuelan production back to its full potential. Trump has suggested that these costs would be covered by the “money coming out of the ground” in Venezuela—a claim reminiscent of the promises made before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when U.S. officials repeatedly stated that the cost would be largely covered by Iraqi assets, including its oil. Various academic estimates indicate that the actual cost to the United States of its multi-year engagement in Iraq ultimately amounted to at least 2,000 billion dollars.

This reference to Iraq makes my blood run cold. Trump promises us that the occupation of Venezuela “won’t cost a penny” because oil money will pay for everything. We’ve heard this lie before, in 2003, and we all know how that ended: thousands of American soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, billions of dollars swallowed up by a never-ending conflict. And now, are we about to repeat the same mistake in Venezuela? It’s as if we were incapable of learning from history, doomed to relive the same catastrophes over and over again, with the same false justifications and the same disastrous results.

The Power That Remains in Caracas

Although Maduro has been captured and extradited to the United States, the political reality in Caracas remains complex and uncertain. U.S. forces have no control over the country itself, and Maduro’s government appears not only to still be in charge but also to have no intention of cooperating with Washington. Trump has not specified who would lead Venezuela once the United States relinquishes control, leaving a potentially dangerous power vacuum in this country of 30 million people bordered by Colombia, Brazil, Guyana, and the Caribbean Sea. This ambiguous situation creates conditions ripe for prolonged instability that could destabilize the entire Latin American region.

Maduro’s apparent successor, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, appeared on Venezuelan television Saturday afternoon alongside other senior officials to denounce what she called a kidnapping. “We demand the immediate release of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores,” Rodriguez said, referring to Maduro as “the sole president of Venezuela.” A Venezuelan court subsequently ordered Rodríguez to assume the position of interim president, in accordance with the Venezuelan Constitution, which stipulates that in the event of the president’s temporary or permanent absence, the vice president must take his place. This internal constitutional transition further complicates U.S. plans to administer the country.

This situation reminds me of that cruel joke: “What’s worse than a dictator? A dictator on the run.” ” Maduro is gone, but his state apparatus is still in place, his loyalists still control the institutions, and the military remains loyal to the Chavista regime. Trump may well say he’s going to “run the country,” but in practice, the United States has very little control over what’s actually happening in Caracas. It’s an absurd situation in which Washington pretends to administer a country it doesn’t really control, while the Chavista government continues to function as if nothing has happened. The result can only be prolonged chaos that will cause the Venezuelan people to suffer more than anyone else.

The Marginalized Opposition

In a surprising turn of events, Trump has publicly closed the door on any cooperation with opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, widely regarded as Maduro’s most credible opponent. “She doesn’t have the support at home or the respect in the country,” Trump said of Machado, last year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate. This stance has left the traditional Venezuelan opposition in a state of confusion and isolation, as it had expected to play a leading role in any post-Maduro transition. Machado had called for the immediate installation of Edmundo González Urrutia as president and for the Venezuelan military to rally behind him. Most Western governments consider González the legitimate winner of Venezuela’s disputed 2024 presidential election.

CNN’s analysis notes that in the hours following the bombing of Caracas and the abduction of Maduro and his wife by U.S. forces, the beleaguered Venezuelan opposition was elated. “Venezuelans, the hour of freedom has arrived,” declared María Corina Machado, leader of the Venezuelan opposition movement and winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. But after Trump expressed a lack of confidence in Machado and suggested he would instead collaborate with Maduro loyalist Delcy Rodriguez, the opposition’s official channels remained silent for most of the day. This development suggests that the U.S. administration favors a pragmatic approach to maintaining order rather than radical democratic transformation.

Trump’s rejection of the Venezuelan democratic opposition leaves me speechless. Years of struggle, sacrifice, persecution… and in the end, the United States decides to collaborate with the very same Chavista loyalists who have repressed the Venezuelan people for years. Maria Corina Machado, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has been sidelined as if she didn’t matter. This is the ultimate betrayal of all the principles America claims to defend. Democracy, freedom, human rights… all swept aside in the name of “stability” and oil interests. I feel ashamed to belong to a world where such cynical calculations take precedence over justice.

A Troubling Legal Precedent

The capture and extradition of the head of state of a sovereign country to stand trial in another country raises unprecedented legal questions for which there are no clear answers under current international law. In the United States, some legal experts have questioned the legality of an operation aimed at seizing the head of state of a foreign power. CNN’s analysis by Katelyn Polantz explores the legality of this move, noting that the United States launched what President Donald Trump called a “large-scale attack on Venezuela” and captured its president to face charges. And they launched this regime-change effort without congressional approval.

This lack of constitutional authorization for a military operation of this magnitude is particularly problematic. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, and although presidents have expanded this power over the decades to conduct limited military operations, an intervention of this scale explicitly aimed at regime change in a sovereign country represents an unprecedented expansion of U.S. executive power. Democrats who said they had been misled during recent briefings demanded a plan for what would happen next, underscoring the growing concern on both sides of the political aisle regarding the constitutionality and wisdom of this bold intervention.

When I think about the legal implications of this operation, I am filled with dread. If a U.S. president can order the abduction of a foreign head of state without congressional approval, what will prevent other powers from doing the same in the future? We are opening a legal Pandora’s box whose consequences could be felt for generations to come. International law, already fragile, risks collapsing completely under the weight of this precedent. And we are watching it all unfold like a disaster movie, unable to intervene.

The Charges Against Maduro

The charges Maduro faces in the United States are serious and numerous. He has been indicted on various U.S. charges, including conspiracy to commit drug-related terrorism. His wife also faces charges, including conspiracy to import cocaine. These charges are part of a long-standing U.S. strategy aimed at delegitimizing the Chavista regime by portraying it as a “narco-state” run by criminals rather than a legitimate government. The Trump administration accused Maduro of running a narco-state and of rigging the 2024 election, thereby justifying military intervention as a law enforcement operation aimed at curbing drug shipments to the United States.

Maduro, a 63-year-old former bus driver chosen by the dying Hugo Chávez to succeed him in 2013, denied these allegations and claimed that Washington intended to take control of his nation’s oil reserves. However, critics have noted that Trump’s emphasis on oil during his press conference raised questions about his administration’s efforts to portray Maduro’s capture and a series of deadly missile strikes against alleged drug-smuggling vessels as a law enforcement operation aimed at curbing drug shipments to the United States. This contradiction between humanitarian and democratic justifications and obvious economic interests fuels suspicions about the true motivations behind this intervention.

This tension between the fight against drug trafficking and access to oil strikes me as particularly cynical. Maduro has certainly committed terrible crimes; no one denies that. But singling him out specifically as a target now—after years of international tolerance, at the very moment the United States is seeking to secure oil supplies—the coincidence is a bit too convenient. And if Maduro were truly guilty of narco-terrorism, why not bring him before the International Criminal Court, like any other perpetrator of crimes against humanity? Because the ICC wouldn’t control Venezuela’s oil, of course. Justice is becoming a tool of geopolitics, and it makes me sick.

Between Joy and Anxiety

The Venezuelan people’s reactions to the U.S. intervention and Maduro’s capture have been complex and contradictory, reflecting the deep division that has run through Venezuelan society for years. Across the country and abroad, Venezuelans have expressed joy and hope—but also apprehension and anxiety about their nation’s uncertain future. On the streets of Caracas on Saturday, soldiers patrolled certain areas, and small pro-Maduro crowds gathered in the capital. Others expressed relief at the forced departure of the leader who had presided over the country’s fate for more than a decade of unprecedented economic and political crisis.

Niurka Melendez, co-founder of Venezuelans and Immigrants Aid, a New York-based group that assists Venezuelan asylum seekers, described the mixed feelings that have gripped her community in the face of this historic turn of events. “It’s like a roller coaster—so many emotions all at once,” Melendez said. “There are still political prisoners in my country. There are still people who live in fear,” she added. “Yet there is at least a light at the end of the tunnel that gives us hope,” she said. Melendez added that Maduro’s arrest meant “justice”—an essential step before the Venezuelan people can begin to rebuild their country. “I mean, our country is in shambles. We’ve lost our country, and now we’re putting the pieces back together… I know it will be a very complicated task,” she said.

When I listen to the stories of ordinary Venezuelans like Niurka Melendez, I am moved by their courage and resilience. After years of suffering, exile, and despair, they finally dare to hope for a better future. But that hope is fragile, like a flickering flame in an uncertain wind. Justice has finally come for Maduro, but at what cost? And what will become of this people who have suffered so much? The answers to these questions will depend largely on how the international community and the U.S. administration handle this perilous transition.

Celebrations Among the Diaspora

The Venezuelan diaspora, which has grown considerably in recent years as millions of Venezuelans fled the economic and political crisis in their country, has reacted enthusiastically to Maduro’s capture. Images from around the world show Venezuelans celebrating in the streets of cities such as Santiago, Chile; Tenerife in the Canary Islands, Spain; and even Miami in the United States. In New York, a large crowd gathered outside the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, waving Venezuelan flags and chanting slogans calling for freedom, as Maduro was escorted into the facility.

These spontaneous celebrations reflect the immense relief felt by many Venezuelans who saw Maduro as the symbol of all their suffering: economic collapse, political repression, the humanitarian crisis, and forced exile. For this diaspora, which has maintained ties to its homeland through family and community networks, Maduro’s capture represents a historic turning point—the long-awaited possibility of a return to democracy and prosperity. However, this euphoria is tempered by an awareness of the immense challenges facing the country during this uncertain transition period.

The images of the Venezuelan diaspora celebrating in the streets around the world bring tears to my eyes. It is the pure, selfless joy of people who have lost everything but who suddenly find hope again. But this joy also terrifies me, because it is so fragile. What will happen if the promise of freedom is not kept? What if the U.S. administration fails to deliver on its commitments? What if the transition to democracy fails? The immense hope that fuels these celebrations could turn into even deeper despair. And I fear that the international community may not rise to the occasion in this historic moment.

The Specter of Iraq and Afghanistan

Trump’s comments about an open-ended U.S. military presence in Venezuela echoed the rhetoric surrounding the past invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which ended with U.S. withdrawals after years of costly occupation and thousands of American casualties. During his press conference on Saturday, he said that as president—including during his first term—he had overseen military actions that were “nothing but victories.” But none of them involved the overthrow of another country’s leader. This unprecedented intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation could lead to a prolonged quagmire with unpredictable consequences.

Trump stated on Saturday that the U.S. occupation “won’t cost us a penny” because the United States would be reimbursed with “money coming out of the ground,” referring to Venezuela’s oil reserves—a topic he returned to repeatedly during Saturday’s press conference. The idea that a country’s oil reserves can pay for a U.S. invasion is also reminiscent of the 2003 war in Iraq. In the run-up to the invasion, U.S. officials repeatedly stated that the cost would be largely covered by Iraqi assets, including its oil. Various academic estimates indicate that the actual cost to the United States of its multi-year engagement in Iraq ultimately amounted to at least 2,000 billion dollars.

This comparison with Iraq haunts me. How can we make the same mistake twice? The United States claims that the occupation of Venezuela will be “self-financing” thanks to oil. That is exactly what they said in 2003 about Iraq. And we all know how that ended: thousands of American soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, billions of dollars swallowed up by a never-ending conflict. The cynicism of this historical repetition leaves me speechless. Are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, as if we were incapable of learning from the past?

Logistical and Security Challenges

Former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Charles Shapiro told CNN that the U.S. plan to “take over” Venezuela, as suggested by President Donald Trump, would be a complicated task given the local political situation and potential security risks. He estimated that at least “20 percent, perhaps more, of the population” remain supporters of President Nicolás Maduro. “How to win these people over and turn the situation around is going to be very, very difficult,” said Shapiro, who is also the former president of the World Affairs Council of Atlanta.

Security concerns are also a factor, given the country’s population of about 30 million and the fact that it is home to certain guerrilla groups. However, the Trump administration seems unlikely to send troops and is apparently relying on Vice President Delcy Rodriguez and the Venezuelan military to maintain security, he said. “This is going to be a very, very difficult balancing act,” he added. Retired General Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander, pointed out that potential hostility in Venezuela could make it difficult for the United States to secure oil with its troops. “In the past, countries haven’t liked it when major powers come in just to steal resources,” he said.

This prospect of occupation sends a chill down my spine. Trump says, “We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” but he doesn’t mention the blood that will be shed. Venezuelans do not want to be occupied by a foreign power, regardless of their opinion of Maduro. Nationalism and national pride transcend internal political divisions. And what about the guerrilla groups active in the country? The drug cartels? Criminal elements? An occupation could descend into chaos even worse than Maduro’s regime. I fear we are setting the stage for a humanitarian disaster even more severe than the one we claim to be solving.

The Return of the Monroe Doctrine

Trump’s actions in Venezuela are a disturbing reminder of the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823 by President James Monroe, which asserted the United States’ claim to set the tone in the region, as well as the “gunboat diplomacy” practiced under President Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s. For decades, this doctrine served as a justification for U.S. interventionism in Latin America, arguing that European powers should not interfere in the affairs of the American continent, which the United States considered its exclusive sphere of influence. The intervention in Venezuela appears to mark a bold return to this American imperialist tradition, which had receded somewhat after the Cold War.

Trump alluded to these comparisons during his press conference, suggesting that an updated version could be called the “Donroe Doctrine”—a play on words combining his own name with the historic Monroe Doctrine. Although various Latin American governments oppose Maduro and claim he stole the 2024 election, Trump’s boasts about controlling Venezuela and exploiting its oil dredge up painful memories of past U.S. interventions in Latin America—interventions that are generally opposed by the governments and peoples of the region. These interventions have left deep scars in the collective Latin American memory, fueling a lasting distrust of U.S. intentions in the region.

The “Dulles Doctrine”… I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Trump is turning a historic imperialist doctrine into a personal joke, as if history were nothing more than raw material for his oversized ego. But behind this joke in poor taste lies a terrifying reality: the return of U.S. imperialism to Latin America in an even more aggressive and arrogant form. The scars of past interventions—Chile in 1973, Guatemala in 1954, Nicaragua in the 1980s—are still fresh in the collective Latin American memory. And now, we’re adding Venezuela in 2026 to that blacklist. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. This time, it’s both.

The Impact on Inter-American Relations

The divergent reactions of Latin American governments to the U.S. intervention highlight the deep divisions running through the region regarding the future of Venezuela and, more broadly, the nature of relations with the United States. The strong condemnation from Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia contrasts with the enthusiastic support from Argentina, El Salvador, and Ecuador, reflecting an ideological divide that risks deepening in the coming months. This polarization could undermine efforts toward regional integration and weaken Pan-American organizations that seek to promote cooperation among the continent’s nations.

U.S. intervention could also have unintended consequences for migration patterns in the region. Colombia, which already hosts the largest Venezuelan diaspora, has deployed security forces along its border to prepare for a potential influx of refugees fleeing the growing instability in its neighboring country. Other countries in the region could also face increased migratory pressures if the situation in Venezuela continues to deteriorate. These population movements could, in turn, create political and economic tensions in the host countries, potentially fueling anti-immigrant sentiment and diplomatic tensions among the region’s states.

Latin America is once again torn apart, as it has been so often throughout its turbulent history. On one side are those who see U.S. intervention as a necessary liberation; on the other, those who see it as the return of Yankee imperialism. Caught in the middle are millions of Venezuelans caught up in this geopolitical conflict, forced to choose between exile and persecution. A collective tragedy is unfolding before our eyes, and I wonder if history will not repeat the same pattern once again: division, suffering, and ultimately, the emergence of new forms of authoritarianism to “restore order.”

The Division Within the Republican Camp

Trump’s focus on foreign policy is fueling Democratic criticism of him ahead of the November midterm congressional elections, with control of both chambers at stake. Republicans control both chambers by narrow margins. Opinion polls indicate that voters’ top concern is rising domestic prices, not foreign policy. This bold move could therefore prove to be a risky political gamble if it fails to produce quick and tangible results for the U.S. economy.

Trump also runs the risk of alienating some of his own supporters, who have backed his “America First” agenda and oppose foreign intervention. Voicing these concerns, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia who has fallen out with Trump in recent months, stated on social media: “This is what many MAGA people thought they voted to end. Boy, were we wrong.” This criticism from the most loyal wing of the Republican Party underscores the potential for this intervention to create internal divisions within the MAGA coalition that brought Trump to power and could support him in future elections.

There is a certain bitter irony in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s criticism. After years of unconditionally supporting Trump, she is finally realizing that “America First” doesn’t mean what she thought it did. I can’t help but think of all those voters who believed in Trump’s promises of non-interventionism, who voted against wars abroad, only to discover now that they’ve been deceived. This betrayal is not just political; it is moral and existential. And I fear that this disillusionment will lead to even deeper cynicism—or worse, to even more fanatical support for even more dangerous political figures.

Domestic Economic Challenges

The Trump administration faces considerable domestic economic challenges that risk being exacerbated by this bold foreign intervention. Opinion polls consistently show that American voters’ top concern is inflation and rising prices, not foreign policy. This intervention in Venezuela could prove to be a costly distraction from domestic economic problems if it fails to produce tangible economic benefits for American households in the near future.

The costs of a military occupation of Venezuela—despite Trump’s promises that they would be covered by oil revenues—could turn out to be much higher than anticipated, as the experience in Iraq has painfully demonstrated. A poorly managed military intervention could also result in American casualties, which would have devastating political consequences for the Trump administration. Furthermore, potential instability in the region could disrupt global oil markets and affect energy prices for American consumers, exacerbating the inflationary pressures the administration is already trying to contain.

I view this situation with growing disbelief. The United States faces massive domestic economic challenges—inflation, national debt, growing inequality—and yet Trump chooses to launch a costly and risky military intervention in Venezuela. It’s as if a couple on the brink of bankruptcy suddenly decided to buy a luxury yacht. This priority seems completely disconnected from the reality of the American people’s needs. And I fear that this foreign distraction is precisely an attempt to divert attention from the administration’s domestic failures.

Possible Scenarios

Several scenarios are possible for Venezuela’s future in the coming months and years, ranging from a successful democratic transition to a prolonged and unstable conflict. In the best-case scenario, a political transition negotiated among the various Venezuelan factions, with the support of the international community, could lead to a stable democratic government capable of rebuilding the country and ending the humanitarian crisis that has affected millions of Venezuelans. This scenario, however, would require an internal political consensus that seems difficult to achieve given the deep divisions within Venezuelan society.

In the worst-case scenario, U.S. intervention could trigger a protracted civil war between Maduro’s supporters and his opponents, with the Venezuelan military splitting into rival factions. Such a civil war could result in massive loss of life, even greater population displacement, and could escalate into a regional conflict involving neighboring countries. This nightmarish scenario is reminiscent of the situations that have devastated countries like Syria, Libya, and Yemen, where foreign interventions have contributed to state collapse and protracted civil wars.

When I think about these possible scenarios for Venezuela’s future, I am overcome with dread. The best-case scenario seems so unlikely, the worst-case scenario so terrifyingly possible. And in between, there are countless variations that could all lead to immense suffering for the Venezuelan people. I want to believe that the light at the end of the tunnel Niurka Melendez speaks of is real, but all I see is darkness. History teaches us that transitions forced from the outside have rarely ended well. Why would this time be any different?

The Role of the International Community

The role of the international community in this critical transition will be decisive for Venezuela’s future. The United Nations, the European Union, and other international organizations will need to play a crucial role in facilitating dialogue among the various Venezuelan factions and in providing essential humanitarian aid to a population that has been suffering for years from economic and political crisis. However, the credibility of these organizations has been undermined by their failure to resolve the Venezuelan crisis prior to U.S. intervention, and their future role will depend largely on their ability to adapt to this new and complex geopolitical reality.

Latin American countries will also need to play a constructive role in this transition, taking care not to let their own political ideologies take precedence over the well-being of the Venezuelan people. The current division between countries that support U.S. intervention and those that condemn it could jeopardize the regional cooperation efforts that will be essential for a successful transition. Only a coordinated and inclusive approach, involving all relevant regional actors, will lay the foundation for lasting peace and shared prosperity in the region.

I look at the international community with a mixture of hope and despair. Hope, because I want to believe that nations can collaborate for the common good. Despair, because history shows that national interest almost always trumps idealism. The United Nations will convene, diplomats will deliver speeches, but on the ground, the major powers will continue to pursue their own interests. And in the meantime, the Venezuelan people wait. They wait for a peace that never comes, for justice that remains out of reach, and for a future that seems increasingly distant.

Parallels with Panama

The last direct U.S. military intervention in Latin America prior to the Venezuelan operation dates back to 1989, when President George H. W. Bush ordered the invasion of Panama to oust military leader Manuel Noriega on allegations that he was running a drug trafficking operation. The United States has leveled similar charges against Maduro, accusing him of running a “narco-state” and of rigging the 2024 election. This historical parallel is particularly relevant because it suggests that the intervention in Venezuela could follow a similar pattern: a swift military invasion followed by a prolonged and controversial occupation.

The invasion of Panama, dubbed “Operation Just Cause,” resulted in Noriega’s capture and extradition to the United States, where he was convicted of drug trafficking. However, the operation also caused hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian casualties and left Panama deeply traumatized by this experience of foreign occupation. The United States maintained a military presence in Panama for years after the invasion, creating ongoing diplomatic tensions with the Panamanian government and fueling lasting resentment toward U.S. interventionism in the region. This historical experience should serve as a warning about the risks of a similar military intervention in Venezuela.

The invasion of Panama… I remember the images, the reports of civilian casualties, the chaos that followed. Noriega was captured, tried, and convicted. But at what cost? Panama was occupied, its institutions compromised, its sovereignty violated. And now, we are repeating this pattern in Venezuela, but on an even larger scale. I feel as though I’m watching a Greek tragedy unfold before my eyes, in which the heroes inevitably repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, unable to learn from the lessons of the past. The inevitability of history weighs heavily on me.

The Warnings of History

History is replete with examples of foreign interventions that have gone awry, creating more problems than they have solved. U.S. interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere have all led to catastrophic outcomes that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and destabilized entire regions. These experiences should serve as a warning about the dangers of attempting to impose political solutions through military force without a deep understanding of local dynamics and without a credible reconstruction plan.

However, the lessons of history appear to have been ignored by the Trump administration, which is pursuing intervention in Venezuela with an optimism disconnected from historical realities. Former President Trump himself had criticized such interventions in the past, calling the invasion of Iraq a “big, fat mistake” during a 2016 presidential debate, and saying in 2021 that he was “particularly proud to be the first president in decades not to have started any new wars.” This striking contrast between past rhetoric and present action underscores the inconsistency and political opportunism that characterize Trump’s approach to foreign policy.

Trump’s complete about-face leaves me speechless. In 2016, he criticized the invasion of Iraq as a “big, fat mistake.” In 2021, he boasts of being “the first president in decades not to have started any new wars.” And today, he’s launching the largest U.S. military intervention in Latin America in decades. The hypocrisy is so brazen that it’s almost fascinating. It’s as if words no longer have any meaning, as if the truth no longer matters at all. And that terrifies me, because when political leaders stop respecting the truth, what’s left?

The Dawn of a New Era?

U.S. intervention in Venezuela and Trump’s sensational declaration of his intention to “run the country” undoubtedly mark a historic moment with potentially incalculable consequences. We are witnessing a turning point in international relations, a moment when the rules that have governed the world order since World War II are being openly challenged by a power that no longer wishes to be bound by the norms of international law. What is happening in Venezuela is not merely a regional crisis; it is a test of the international system itself, and the responses we give today will shape the world in which we and future generations will live.

The courage and determination of the Venezuelan people—who have suffered for years under an authoritarian regime and now dare to hope for a better future—deserve our respect and our unconditional support. Niurka Melendez and the millions of Venezuelans like her—who have lost everything but still hold onto hope—remind us that even in the darkest moments, human dignity can prevail. However, this fragile hope risks being crushed if the international community fails to orchestrate a transition that truly respects the democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people and preserves Venezuela’s sovereignty in the face of U.S. imperialist ambitions.

As I write these lines, I am overcome by a sense of utter vertigo. We are living through a historic moment, yes, but it is a historic moment that terrifies me. The rules of the international game have been shattered, international law violated, and no one seems capable of stopping this madness. Venezuela has become the testing ground for a new world order where brute force trumps justice, where economic interests take precedence over democratic principles. And I wonder: if we accept this today, which country will be next on the list? Who will be the next target? The barriers that protected the weakest nations from the arbitrariness of the strongest have fallen. We are witnessing the dawn of a world governed by the law of the jungle, and I don’t know if I have the courage to watch what happens next.

A Call to Global Conscience

The international community faces a crucial choice in the days and weeks ahead. It can choose to remain passive and allow this unilateral intervention to define the new rules of international relations, or it can choose to defend the principles of sovereignty and international law that were forged at such great cost after the horrors of World War II. The nations of the world have a collective responsibility to remind the United States that power does not grant the right to do whatever one pleases, that the sovereignty of nations must be respected even when it is inconvenient, and that international law must apply to all—the powerful as well as the weak.

However, I fear that this heartfelt plea will go unheard, that realpolitik will once again prevail over principles, and that cynicism will triumph over idealism. Nations will continue to defend their interests, the great powers will continue to impose their will, and the Venezuelan people will continue to suffer in the shadow of these grand geopolitical maneuvers. But I refuse to give up hope, because hope is the only weapon we have against the inevitability of history. Perhaps one day, in the distant future, we will look back on this moment and say that this was the turning point—the moment when we finally chose justice over power, humanity over self-interest. Until then, I continue to hope, despite everything.