Venezuela: The Precedents

And America: The Future

Now that the United States has extracted Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela, it might help to consider four precedents. No event of the moment is exactly like any episode in the past. But in recalling history, we can see elements of the present that will otherwise be shrouded by propaganda or emotion.

1. American intervention in Latin America. Throughout the cold war, and indeed long before, the United States has intervened in Central and South America, asserting an implicit right to choose leaders. Sometimes these interventions were designed to reverse the outcome of elections, replacing the elected leader or government with people favored in Washington.

During the cold war, such operations were covered by a pro-democracy propaganda cloak, the logic being that whatever the United States did must have been to stop communism, and communism was anti-democratic.

This time around, there is no pretense that the goal is democracy. Nicolás Maduro and his allies stole the 2024 Venezuelan election, but that very real crime is not what the Trump people are punishing: the Trumpists prefer the essentially fictional concept of “narco-terrorism.” Venezuela has a legitimately elected president: Edmundo González. There is no sign that he figures in Trump’s plans Trump dismisses the courageous activist María Machado, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, as “a nice woman” who lacks popular support. (This is after she dedicated the Prize to him -- it is important to remember the golden rule of dealing with Trump: he will always disappoint you.)

In light of the open US extraction of Maduro in January 2026, it is also worth revisiting the American-backed extraction of María Machado herself in December 2025, just four weeks ago. At the time this appeared to be a move designed to help her appear in Norway for the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. At the moment, it looks much more like an American attempt to remove a rival for power and clear the way for an American imperialism directed not so much against Maduro as against Venezuelans as a people.

Yet the imperialism does not seem to be very well considered. In the past, American governments chose leaders in Latin America who would support the interests of American companies. On the surface, the same thing appears to be happening here. Trump is offering Venezuela’s oil to American companies, and the money to be made as an explanation for the whole operation. But there is little profit in Venezuelan oil in the short run; huge investments would be necessary in the long run. This would in turn require political stability. It does seem, at first glance, that the oil companies believe in this.

There is much to be said for democracy. One of the powerful arguments in its favor is continuity: that it offers a chance to move on from a calamity. The obvious thing to do now in Venezuela would be to hold elections.

2. The Second Iraq War. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a turning point for American power and principle. It killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It was based upon lies, which undermined American credibility and weakened American influence. It absorbed huge amounts of American money and attention, creating a window of opportunity for China ro climb to global prominence.

The invasion of Iraq was based upon the idea that removing bad institutions and a bad person would lead to a different and better form of government. The United States had made only very limited plans for the political future of the country, the Bush administration imagining that the defeat of an army, the removal of a dictator, and a ban on a political party would themselves suffice to create the conditions for democracy.

This time around there is no talk of democracy, but there is the similar belief that simply removing a bad actor, Maduro, will predictably create the conditions for a desired change, a Venezuela that America “runs.” But in Venezuela the army has not actually been defeated, and indeed Maduro’s regime shows no sign of changing.

In Iraq, although it was embarrassing to say so, the American occupiers were reduced to cooperating with the people they said that they had overthrown. In Iraq, this evolution took years; in Venezuela it took hours. Insofar as there is an American plan, it is that everyone in Venezuela will now do what Americans want, starting with Maduro’s government, which is still in power.

Trump says that person Maduro considered to be his vice-president, Delcy Rodríguez, can run the show for the Americans. She is in office thanks to a stolen election; it now appears that she is being offered the backing of American violence as well as that of the Maduro secret services and civilian gangs. For her part, Rodríguez says that the operation was illegal and seems to believe that it was done on behalf of an international Jewish conspiracy.

Another powerful argument for democracy is legitimacy. The Maduro regime holds power through violence and intimidation. Its remnants do not become more legitimate when backed by American violence and intimidation.

3. The Russian invasion of Ukraine. It was striking to hear Donald Trump describe the extraction of Maduro as an “extraordinary military operation,” since this is essentially the same language that Vladimir Putin used in his speech announcing the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. One wonders what term the translators have been using in all of those long phone calls Trump holds with Putin.

In invading Ukraine, Putin deliberately exploited the language of law, claiming that his aggression was justified by the UN Charter. The point was not to affirm but to ridicule the principles of international law. Russia has worked hard to create a world in which everyone treats international law as a joke. The American government made no effort to justify its extraction of Maduro in terms of international law, which is an obvious Russian intellectual victory -- even if the Kremlin itself might be displeased by the consequences in this particular case.

Less obviously, but more profoundly, the indifference to law is a victory for China. Until now, the Russians who have been doing the dirty work in China’s effort to remake the international order as simply a matter of power politics carried out by dictators in the service of personal priorities. Now the Americans are also helping to bring about a Chinese world order.

Like Putin with respect to Ukraine, Trump makes no secret that he wants to “run” Venezuela. And in one respect he has been more successful than Putin. The Russian invasion of 2022 involved multiple assassination attempts on Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelens’kyi. The US succeeded in extracting Maduro.

It is worth stressing that the American intervention, although clearly an act of war, was in essence an intelligence operation with military support. As far as I can tell, what we saw was a long-term CIA plan, implemented with the help of air strikes against Venezuelan anti-aircraft systems so that helicopters could get in and out. Trump has presented it as “an assault like people have not seen since World War II,” which is absurd. The whole tenor of his press conference was that the military had performed magic and the story was over. But what happens when it turns out that it is not?

A third powerful argument for democracy is predictability. Putin was surprised when Ukrainians resisted his invasion, and so he had to continue it, at huge and pointless cost to his people. If it becomes clear, as it surely must, that the United States extracted Maduro in order to have its own version of Maduro, then it will face resistance of all kinds, and much of it will be unpredictable. The United States has entered now into a logic of escalation, in which every surprise in another country will have to be greeted with ever more military force. The way to prevent the chaos and the killing is to hold elections (or, in this case, to recognize the person who won the last Venezuelan presidential election as the president).

4. The fascist wars. Fascist regimes were defeated in 1945, but they were, while they lasted, legitimated by war. Fascists claimed that their dictatorships were justified because their political opponents were in fact in the service of foreign enemies and international conspiracies. Germany, Italy, and Romania fought wars in order to bring the external and the internal enemy into alignment. It was much easier then to oppress the internal enemy when the population was at war.

No one can be sure what Trump is thinking, but it is a reasonable guess that his purposes in extracting Maduro from Venezuela were domestic. The charges that have been filed against Maduro involve drugs rather than the more serious (and far easier to prove) acts of extra-judicial killings and torture of his regime. The drug angle serves the political purpose of uniting the external and the internal enemy. Because the drug trade involves foreign as well as domestic actors, it allows the Trump people to claim that its political opponents are in the service of an international plot. Like the issue of migration, a Trumpian “war on drugs” might be used to create a larger paramilitary, along the lines of ICE.

Trump and his advisors seem to want the political gains of fighting a war without actually having to fight one. They want the short cut to fascism, claiming a huge victory right away, while tweeting about the enemies at home. But fascism requires not quick operations but real combat that endangers and thus engages civilians. Even assuming that Trump’s base and Americans generally support this Venezuela action, which is doubtful, it will be forgotten within days -- unless it is escalated.

Putin was willing to follow the fascists of the 1930s into full-scare war combined with fascism at home. Trump would no doubt like that result; but it is unlikely that he is willing or able to go that far.

Trump is weak at home, and he can be stopped -- so long as the domestic political logic of foreign intervention is recognized and turned against him. This act of war is more about regime change in the United States than it was about anything in Venezuela. It only succeeds as fascism if Americans allow it to do so. If journalists and judges recognize the connection between foreign adventures and domestic authoritarianism, an act of violence abroad will discredit rather than accelerate our own transition towards authoritarianism. And with some work and some luck, we will get to our own next elections.

A final powerful argument for democracy is peace. If Venezuela could hold elections now, or if its elected president could take office, it is unlikely that the United States would have any reasonable complaints about drugs or anything else. If American democracy were more functional, we would not be where we are. The American president is commander in chief, but it is Congress that must authorize any act of war.

The point of these four comparisons is not that history repeats. It is that history reveals. It can help us see around corners, into possible futures. Each of these examples, I hope, provides a useful perspective: that American imperialism is a tradition; that removing something or someone does not lead to predictable results; that dispensing with international law is not only wrong but undesirable; that foreign military actions can be about domestic regime change. What we see we can stop; what we understand we can change.