Table of Contents
U.S. intervention in other countries has been a consistent aspect of its foreign policy, typically driven by a mix of security, political, economic, and ideological factors. Venezuela fits this historical pattern. To understand repeated U.S. actions toward Venezuela, it is necessary to look beyond the argument that involvement is only about oil and consider the broader strategic context that has influenced past interventions.
The United States has usually intervened in other countries for several reasons at the same time, not just one main interest. From a security point of view, the U.S. often treats problems far away as threats to its own safety. This can be seen in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks and in Iraq in 2003, where wars were justified as preventive actions to stop future dangers. Politically, the U.S. has sought to shape regional politics by pressuring or isolating governments that challenge its influence, especially in Latin America, as evidenced by past involvement in Chile, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Economically, interventions through wars, sanctions, or diplomatic pressure often give the U.S. long-term advantages by influencing trade, controlling financial systems, and limiting rivals’ access to key resources, even when there is no immediate financial gain. Sanctions on countries like Iran and Russia show how economic pressure can be used as a powerful tool. Ideologically, U.S. actions are often explained in terms of democracy, human rights, and humanitarian concerns, as in the Balkans during the 1990s or in Libya in 2011.
While this aspect can be explainable through the theoretical aspects as well: From a realist perspective, U.S. intervention in Venezuela is primarily about preserving American power in Latin America. As a dominant regional power, the United States seeks to prevent rival states from gaining strategic influence close to its borders. The growing economic and political presence of China in Latin America, especially through loans, infrastructure projects, and strategic partnerships with Venezuela, challenges U.S. dominance. From this viewpoint, Washington’s actions are aimed at blocking China’s strategic hedging, maintaining regional control, and protecting its relative power rather than advancing ideological or humanitarian goals.
From a critical theory perspective, U.S. intervention in Venezuela reflects the interests of American elites rather than national security concerns. In this view, foreign policy is shaped by political, corporate, and financial elites who benefit from market access and control over natural resources. Venezuela’s large oil reserves and state-led economic model threaten these elite economic interests. U.S. pressure is therefore seen as an attempt to protect elite wealth, promote a market-friendly order, and secure long-term access to strategic resources.
DEBATE OF MONROE DOCTRINE:
The Monroe Doctrine was an early declaration of American power, warning European states to stay out of the Western Hemisphere in the name of continental security and U.S. expansion. This mindset later evolved into Manifest Destiny, which openly justified territorial growth, most clearly during the Mexican-American War.
In the present era, this logic has not disappeared, it has been updated. U.S. actions toward Venezuela reflect a Monroe Doctrine 2.0, where the goal is no longer to block European empires but to prevent rival powers like China and Russia from gaining influence in Latin America. Under modern conditions, the doctrine survives as a strategic instinct: defend the hemisphere, limit external rivals, and preserve U.S. dominance close to home.
THE INCIDENT:
On 3 January 2026, the United States carried out a sudden military operation inside Venezuela, focusing on the capital, Caracas. According to official statements, U.S. forces targeted key military sites and then carried out a special operation to arrest Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. Both were taken into U.S. custody and transported to the United States.
The operation was called as “Law Enforcement and Counter Narcotic Operation”
TWO DEBATES ARISES:
1. IDEA OF SOVERIENITY
2. REGIME CHANGE
First is the debate on sovereignty.
Sovereignty means that a state has the right to control its own territory without outside interference. Critics argue that the United States violated this basic rule by using force inside Venezuela. This idea of sovereignty is a cornerstone of international politics and is strongly defended by realist scholars, such as those in The Anarchical Society, who argue that order among states depends on respecting borders and refraining from intervention. Supporters of the U.S. action respond that sovereignty should not protect governments accused of repression or criminal behaviour, reflecting a growing tension between legal sovereignty and moral responsibility.
Second, the debate over regime change.
The attack revived concerns that U.S. policy toward Venezuela is ultimately aimed at removing an unfriendly government rather than addressing specific security or legal issues. Critics see the operation as part of a long history of U.S.-backed regime change efforts, particularly in Latin America, where external intervention has often reshaped domestic politics. Supporters counter that the objective was not occupation but leadership accountability and political transition. Together, these debates place Venezuela at the centre of a wider global argument about power, intervention, and the future rules of international order.
CAUSES OF INTERVENTION BY U.S:
Energy geo-politics:
Energy geopolitics has become a central reason for U.S. interest in Venezuela, because Venezuela sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves, about 303 billion barrels, nearly 17% of the global total, making it one of the most strategically important energy bases on the planet.
Even though production has fallen, control of these reserves still matters for global markets and long-term energy competition. In this view, access to Venezuelan oil is not just about fuel; it is about influence and economic advantage in a world where energy remains a cornerstone of power.
U.S. President Donald Trump stated that the United States would “keep the oil,” revealing how energy interests shape foreign policy decisions.
Scholars like Michael T. Klare argue in Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict that modern conflicts are increasingly driven by competition over critical natural resources.
That states will act to secure those resources as part of a national strategy rather than for purely ideological reasons. Meanwhile, public statements linked to the U.S. response following the 2026 intervention, including discussions about who benefits from Venezuelan oil and how its revenue might be used, underline how energy resources sit at the heart of geopolitical rivalry.
Migration:
Migration has become another key factor behind U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Between 2013 and 2025, nearly 8 million Venezuelans fled their country, many attempting to reach the United States, making it one of the largest migration crises in modern history. In the U.S. political discourse, this movement was increasingly framed as a security and social threat rather than a humanitarian issue. Former President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that migrants were “fleeing crime” and bringing instability across borders.
This can be explained from “Securitization theory”, that has 3 components:
1. Speech Actor – Leader who is shaping the narrative by his/her statements.
2. Referent Object – The particular event to target.
3. Audience – The masses, they are the objects on which the narrative is implied.
This is used to shape the narrative of the masses as “Perception of Threat”
War on drug narrative:
It has been defined by United states of America by 2 proponents:
1. Venezuela Cártel De Los Soles:
Cartel de los Soles (Spanish for Cartel of the Suns) is a term used in connection with networks of “high-ranking Venezuelan military and government officials allegedly involved in drug trafficking and other illicit activities.” The name comes from the sun insignias worn by senior military officers, and U.S. authorities have described
“It is a state-linked narco-criminal system that helped move cocaine toward the United States, even designating it as a foreign terrorist organisation in 2025” .
2. Tren de Aragua:
The rise of groups such as Tren de Aragua and allegations surrounding the Cartel de los Soles have been folded into the long-standing U.S. “war on drugs” narrative to justify tougher action against Venezuela. Washington has increasingly portrayed Venezuela not only as a political challenge but as a source of transnational crime, linking drug trafficking, organized gangs, and migrant routes to U.S. domestic security. By framing these criminal networks as threats that spill across borders, U.S. policymakers argue that intervention, sanctions, and legal action are necessary to protect public safety at home.
IMPACTS:
Domestic Politics of Venezuela:
With Nicolás Maduro already removed from power, Venezuela is facing a serious power vacuum. When the top leadership disappears suddenly, the state becomes weak and confused, and no clear authority is left to control the system. In this situation, criminal groups and drug networks find space to grow, because institutions like the police, courts, and administration lose direction. Instead of bringing stability, the leadership change risks allowing drug culture and illegal activities to spread further, making domestic politics more unstable and everyday life more insecure for ordinary people.
Threat Perception for Regional Countries:
U.S. intervention in Venezuela has also increased fear and insecurity among neighboring states. Countries in Latin America worry that political instability, violence, and drug networks could spill across borders if Venezuela remains unstable. A power vacuum can lead to more cross-border crime, arms smuggling, and refugee flows, directly affecting states like Colombia, Brazil, and Peru. As a result, what began as a domestic crisis is now seen as a regional security threat, forcing neighboring countries to increase border controls and security cooperation, while fearing that instability may spread across the region.
Global Power Politics:
The U.S. intervention in Venezuela has also reshaped global power politics. Major powers such as China and Russia view the U.S. action as a signal that Washington is willing to use force to protect its influence, especially in regions it considers strategically important. This has deepened global divisions, with rival powers criticising the intervention as a violation of sovereignty while quietly reassessing their own security strategies.
DANIEL YERGIN In his Book “THE NEW MAP” States,
“Oil is used as a Strategic Weapon in Global Power Politics”
CONCLUSION
“SHIFT FROM RULE-BASED ORDER TO POWER-BASED INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM”
After this incident, many observers argue that the world is shifting from a rules-based international order to a power-based one. The idea that global politics is guided by laws, norms, and institutions now appears weaker, as major powers act first and justify later. International organisations such as the United Nations have struggled to prevent or restrain the use of force, raising questions about their relevance and authority. This failure has revived uncomfortable comparisons with the pre–Second World War era, when international bodies lacked the power to stop aggressive states and global politics was driven largely by raw power rather than agreed rules. In this environment, strength increasingly matters more than law, and smaller states are left uncertain about who will protect them when rules are ignored.
