Trump’s crude vision for Venezuela, By Bisi Olanipekun

… it remains unclear whether President Trump can effectively influence Venezuela’s actions, let alone shape the broader geopolitical landscape of the Americas. Imagine a nation, blessed with the world’s largest oil reserves – a staggering 303 billion barrels – suddenly finding itself under foreign occupation, its leader a captive. If such an act is deemed acceptable, then any assault, anywhere, could be justified. This is a perilous path we tread. 

Donald Trump characterised it as “an assault like people have not seen since World War II.” The strike on Caracas on 3rd January was meticulously executed like a military guidebook exercise. The ability of US forces to infiltrate the core of Venezuela’s capital under the cover of a moonlit night, supports Trump ‘s assertion that no other nation could have executed such a mission. The seamless operation to locate and extract Mr Maduro highlights the exceptional level of planning and intelligence involved.

The flawless execution of the operation hinted at possible collusion between individuals within Mr Maduro’s regime, security forces, or personal guard and the Americans to minimise resistance. It is suspected that someone close to Mr Maduro negotiated with the US and ultimately betrayed him. The events of that night in Caracas left many residents in disbelief, likening it to a scene from a war movie. Over 150 American aircraft from 20 bases conducted a swift operation on 3rd January, including low-flying helicopters carrying special forces that engaged and neutralised Mr Maduro’s Cuban bodyguards. Amid the chaos, Mr Maduro was captured while attempting to seek refuge in an armoured safe room, along with his wife, Cilia Flores. Within hours, they were taken to an American warship offshore. President Trump, who oversaw the operation remotely from his country club in Florida, was impressed by the speed and precision of the raid. The captured couple is currently in New York awaiting trial on drug trafficking.

The Monroe Doctrine, a cornerstone of US foreign policy in the early 19th century, was established to prevent European recolonisation and intervention in the Western Hemisphere. Over time, its interpretation has evolved to support increased US involvement in Latin America. Currently, there is a perception that this policy could be
interpreted to grant other nations permission for assertive actions, such as China’s potential annexation of Taiwan, Russia’s ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen. The implications of this evolving geopolitical landscape for Venezuela and the wider world remain uncertain.

President Trump has reportedly updated the Monroe Doctrine, which historically aimed to exclude European powers from the Americas. His updated version appears to assert America’s right to intervene in countries in the Western Hemisphere as it deems appropriate. Trump declared that the US is “in charge” of Venezuela and described his intention to revitalise the Monroe Doctrine, the 1823 statement outlining US influence in the Western Hemisphere. He characterised the Monroe Doctrine as significant. The President, known to keep a portrait of the fifth US president near his Oval Office desk, suggested that his administration had significantly surpassed the original doctrine. He referred to his updated policy as the “Donroe doctrine.”

Multiple nations in the region have reportedly been cautioned that they could face similar consequences to Venezuela if they do not alter their behaviours. However, it remains unclear whether President Trump can effectively influence Venezuela’s actions, let alone shape the broader geopolitical landscape of the Americas. Imagine a nation, blessed with the world’s largest oil reserves – a staggering 303 billion barrels – suddenly finding itself under foreign occupation, its leader a captive. If such an act is deemed acceptable, then any assault, anywhere, could be justified. This is a perilous path we tread. While Uncle Sam may seize control of these immense oil riches, the message is stark: such aggressive actions only breed global resentment towards Americans.

This is not about defending freedom; it is an exhibition of power. To declare war on another nation without the approval of Congress is nothing less than “old-fashioned imperialism”, as Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont so succinctly puts it. This directly challenges the democratic ideals that should guide the use of military might. The American soul yearns for truth, weary of the gilded lies that shroud its destiny. This isn’t a narrative of illicit substances or the ebb and flow of democratic tides, but rather a saga woven from the threads of black gold and Donald Trump’s insatiable hunger for the mantle of a global strongman. Had his heart been truly tethered to such noble aspirations, he would not have offered a presidential pardon to a convicted trafficker, nor sidelined Venezuela’s true voice of opposition, all while brokering clandestine deals with Maduro’s inner circle.

Now, the President deploys our brave troops into peril, pouring billions into a destabilising venture, a geopolitical gamble devoid of legal foundation, an exit strategy, or any discernible benefit for our nation. America cries out for leadership with its gaze fixed not on foreign entanglements, but on the betterment of its own people: lowering the burdens on working families, upholding the sanctity of law, forging resilient alliances, and, above all, championing the very citizens it claims to serve.

The raid on Caracas, the invasion of Venezuela – these acts are not born of American security concerns. Venezuela poses no threat to our shores. This entire charade is a machination to enrich Trump’s oil magnates and the Wall Street titans who pull his strings. His foreign policy, a tangled web spun across the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela, stands as a monument to corruption. Forty-eight hours after facilitating the toppling of Venezuela’s leader, President Trump asserted US rights over the country’s oil and threatened Colombia with a similar fate. He also declared that Cuba was not worth invading, suggesting it was already on the verge of collapse. Furthermore, Trump reiterated his claim that Greenland should be under American control. These statements appear to stem from a sense of emboldenment following the swift capture of Nicolás Maduro.

Let us be clear: Maduro is a reprehensible figure. But does that grant us the right to directly intervene militarily in Venezuela? A dangerous precedence is being set. Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela do not make America any safer, stronger, or more prosperous. The fact that Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator does not absolve this action of its unlawfulness and folly. We have witnessed this drama before. Wars waged for regime change or oil, paraded as displays of strength, inevitably devolve into chaos, leaving American families to bear the cost.

In a bold stroke, Mr Trump’s daring raid, though it may have clipped the wings of Mr Maduro’s regime, has not yet felled it. Recall America ‘s ventures into Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003; the initial surge of military might, while impressive, proved a fleeting harbinger of lasting triumph. Yet, this raid in Caracas, like a whispered secret, might just hold the key to a future strategy, a tempting blueprint.

Bisi Olanipekun is Premium Times’ Washington DC Bureau reporter and a graduate of The Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, Washington DC.