Within hours of a major regime change operation in Venezuela, US President Donald Trump exulted in his “success.” He posted a photo of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in handcuffs and addressed the American people.
He praised the military for launching “one of the most amazing, effective and powerful displays of American military power” in U.S. history, which he said left Venezuela’s military “helpless.” He announced that Maduro and his wife would be indicted in New York on charges of “narcoterrorism” and claimed, without evidence, that the U.S. operation had reduced maritime drug trafficking by 97 percent.
President Trump went further, declaring that the United States would “run the country” until an unspecified transition of power was arranged, while openly threatening a “second and larger attack.” Importantly, he framed these claims within the broader framework of America’s “dominance over the Western Hemisphere,” explicitly citing the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.
US military intervention in Venezuela represents something far more dangerous than a single act of aggression. This is the latest manifestation of a centuries-old pattern of U.S. interference that has left scars in Latin America. The regime change operation in Caracas clearly shows that the Trump administration is embracing this old interventionist policy with new enthusiasm. And that bodes ill for the region.
What makes the situation equally devastating is that this attack targeted President Maduro’s repressive and corrupt government, which has been responsible for inflicting untold suffering on many Venezuelans. Washington’s long history of supporting brutal dictatorships across the region strips it of any pretense of moral authority. Trump himself can hardly claim the moral high ground, given that he is himself embroiled in a major political scandal for his close ties to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and maintains unqualified support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela cemented a devastating pattern of violations of international law. If the United States could unilaterally launch military attacks against sovereign states on a whim, the entire framework of international law would become meaningless. This teaches all nations that power and power trump legality and sovereignty.
For Latin America in particular, the implications are chilling. To understand why this attack has such painful repercussions across the region, it is necessary to briefly review its history. The United States orchestrates or supports coups and military dictatorships across the region with disturbing regularity.
In Guatemala in 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz. In Chile in 1973, the United States supported a coup that brought Augusto Pinochet to power and ushered in an era of unchecked political violence. In 1983, the United States invaded and occupied the island of Grenada to overthrow the socialist government. In Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and throughout Central America, Washington provided training, funding, and political protection to military regimes that tortured dissidents and killed civilians.
The new question is, if the United States were to easily implement regime change in Venezuela, who would be next? Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who is at odds with the Trump administration, was quick to react, but it is understandable to be concerned since Trump threatened to intervene in December, saying, “I’ll be next.” Other parts of the region are also on edge.
Latin America currently faces the immediate threat of US intervention, as well as the potential regional instability that regime change in Caracas could cause. The political crisis under Maduro had already spilled across borders to neighboring Colombia and Brazil, where Venezuelans were fleeing poverty and repression. One can only imagine what kind of ripple effects the regime change enacted by the United States will have.
Many Venezuelans are probably celebrating President Maduro’s departure. However, US intervention would directly weaken Venezuela’s political opposition. It would allow the regime that appears to hold power to paint all opposition as foreign pawns, undermining its legitimacy.
Venezuelans are entitled to democracy, but they must achieve it themselves with international support, rather than having it imposed at gunpoint by foreign powers with a documented history of prioritizing resources and geopolitical advantage over human rights.
Latin Americans have a better right to choose between homegrown authoritarianism and imported violence. What they need is not American bombs, but true respect for national self-determination.
Regardless of President Maduro’s authoritarian nature, the United States has no moral authority to attack Venezuela. Both can be true. Maduro is a dictator who has caused untold harm to his people, and U.S. military intervention is an illegal act of aggression that will not resolve Venezuela’s democratic crisis.
The future of this region must be decided by the people themselves, free from the shadow of empire.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
