Analyzing U.S. Intervention in Venezuela: Implications for Foreign Policy

An image circulated on January 3 and 4 illustrating Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, blindfolded and handcuffed, aboard a U.S. naval vessel aimed to project authority and decisiveness. Following the operation to apprehend Maduro and his spouse, Cilia Flores, President Trump proclaimed that the United States would administer Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” could be orchestrated.

A Continuation of Coercive Diplomacy

This move does not represent an isolated incident; rather, it epitomizes a broader trajectory within U.S. foreign policy, one that relies increasingly on coercive measures—military, economic, and political—rather than diplomatic engagement.

• Short-term Compliance vs. Long-term Stability: While such coercive tactics may yield rapid compliance from adversaries, they risk undermining the foundations necessary for enduring power, which fundamentally relies on legitimacy and systemic resilience.

The Venezuelan Context

Without question, Maduro’s regime has precipitated Venezuela’s dire socio-economic collapse. Under his leadership:

• The economy has disintegrated.
• Democratic institutions have been systematically dismantled.
• Criminal networks have intertwined with state apparatuses, leading millions to flee the country, many seeking refuge in the United States.

However, ousting a leader—even one as oppressive and incompetent as Maduro—does not inherently foster a legitimate political order.

The Governance Trap

By publicly declaring its intention to govern Venezuela, the U.S. risks entrenching a governance trap. This self-imposed dilemma arises when external intervention is misconceived as a valid substitute for legitimate domestic governance.

As a scholar specializing in international security and U.S. foreign policy, my research underscores that while military force can remove regimes, it rarely engenders political authority.

The Perils of Kinetic Diplomacy

When violence and what I have termed “kinetic diplomacy” supplant comprehensive strategies—combining diplomacy, economic engagement, and soft power—it tends to exacerbate instability.

• Military Interventions Surge: Employing detailed data from the Military Intervention Project, my co-author Sidita Kushi and I show a marked increase in U.S. military interventions since the end of the Cold War, paralleled by a decline in diplomatic initiatives.

Changing Mission Profiles

The nature of U.S. military engagements has evolved. Interventions historically aimed at stabilization often morph into protracted governance and security management, as observed in Iraq post-2003 and Afghanistan post-2001.

• Institutional Imbalance: Presently, for every dollar allocated to diplomacy through the State Department, $28 is directed to military operations via the Department of Defense, inadvertently prioritizing force over diplomacy.

Historical Precedents

The United States has demonstrated the limitations of force-heavy interventions:

• Afghanistan: After two decades of militarized state-building, the withdrawal of U.S. forces led to the rapid disintegration of the political order, revealing that external backing cannot substitute for internal legitimacy.

• Iraq: The focus on coercive tactics overlooked the region’s cultural complexities, resulting in a responsibility for governance that precipitated systemic resistance rather than stability.

• Libya: The NATO-led intervention succeeded in removing Moammar Gadhafi but failed to lay the groundwork for effective governance, resulting in protracted chaos and conflict.

The Implications of Governance by Force

Assuming governance in Venezuela would also carry substantial strategic ramifications. Such a course could erode principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, which underpin the international order America ostensibly supports.

• Weakening Alliances: The U.S. would compel allies to reconcile American actions with the very principles they strive to uphold elsewhere.

Observations from Global Players

Actions taken by the U.S. concerning Venezuela will be scrutinized not only in Europe but also by allies in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, as well as rival states like China and Russia.

• Justifying Aggressive Moves: Countries such as China could use U.S. actions as justification for their own aggressive maneuvers, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.

The Path Forward

Continuous reliance on military force to assert governance inevitably undermines the U.S. stance on legitimate sovereignty, making it increasingly challenging to encourage collaboration among allies.

• Erosion of Credibility: Over time, this deterioration of legitimacy will restrict cooperative opportunities, complicating the advancement of U.S. interests and capabilities.

Durable peace and stability stem from political legitimacy, not military might. If the U.S. pursues governance through force in Venezuela, it risks repeating the failures seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, reinforcing the notion that while power can unseat regimes, it cannot create the political authority essential for genuine governance.