The forcible abduction of President Nicolas Maduro and Celia Flores—who is not only Maduro’s wife but also a former head of the National Assembly—along with the killing of at least 80 civilians and military personnel, including 32 Cuban guards of Maduro, clearly represents a serious violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and the UN Charter. Trump’s assertive approach resembles the gunboat diplomacy of the 1850s, in which military powers seized resources from weaker nations. This confrontational approach reinforces the view that the US’s usual 21st-century foreign policy emphasises violence and dominance.
The recent increase in violence and Maduro’s abduction are linked to a new National Security Strategy that openly announces a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine:
On December 2, 1823, the doctrine of American sovereignty was immortalized in prose when President James Monroe declared before the Nation a simple truth that has echoed throughout the ages: The United States will never waver in defense of our homeland, our interests, or the well-being of our citizens. Today, my Administration proudly reaffirms this promise under a new “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: That the American people—not foreign nations nor globalist institutions—will always control their own destiny in our hemisphere (Trump, 2025)
The Trump administration clearly indicated that Venezuela and its enormous oil reserves, the largest globally, are the main focus of these aggressive measures, rather than the unsupported claim that Maduro is engaged in the illegal drug trade. Trump has openly stated this in media interviews and provocative social media posts that US military actions will only intensify “Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us”. In support of these threats, the US has intercepted oil tankers at sea in a manner that resembles piracy and has enforced a blockade—an act of war intended to deprive Venezuela of resources.
The recent attack on Venezuela is not the first time the US has taken action against that country; the pressure campaign began in the early 2000s when Hugo Chavez sought to change the terms of the 1990s oil deals. In the 1990s, almost all the major international oil companies were in Venezuela, investing in and exploiting Venezuelan oil. BP, CNPC, Conoco, Chevron, ENI, Exxon, Petrobras, Repsol, Shell, Statoil, and Total, among others, had significant business interests. In 2001, Hugo Chávez’s government unilaterally enacted the Decreto con Fuerza de Ley Organica de Hidrocarburos (Hydrocarbons Law), which established state ownership of all oil and gas reserves and regulated upstream exploration and extraction via state-owned companies. However, it allowed private firms—both domestic and foreign—to participate in downstream activities such as refining and marketing sales. This action angered US oil giants such as ExxonMobil and Chevron, which called on the Bush administration to pressure Chávez to reverse the industry’s nationalisation. This tension led to an April 2002 US-supported coup that temporarily removed Chávez and placed him in detention, but widespread protests forced his return.
Between December 2002 and February 2003, the White House supported an executive lockout in the critical oil sector, backed by corrupt trade union officials aligned with Washington and the AFL-CIO. After three months, the lockout ended through an alliance of loyalist trade unionists, mass organisations, and overseas oil-producing countries. In 2007, the Chávez government initiated another wave of nationalisations, undoing the decade-long privatisation and transfer of operations to US-based corporations. This step was taken after ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips declined to agree to new terms for continued heavy oil extraction in Venezuela’s Orinoco River basin, indicating their exit from one of the world’s largest oil regions. Four other oil companies — U.S.-based Chevron Corp., BP PLC, France’s Total SA and Norway’s Statoil ASA — signed deals to accept minority shares in the oil projects under new terms set by President Chavez’s government.
Following Chávez’s death and Nicolás Maduro’s succession in 2013, Venezuela’s economy contracted sharply amid a drop in global oil prices. As a result, the country faced widespread migration and a sharp decline in living standards. Many factors have contributed to Venezuela’s crisis, including mismanagement of oil wealth, criminality, lawlessness and the black market. While all of these have undoubtedly played a part, a global decline in oil prices has been the primary cause of Venezuela’s difficulties. In 2014, after some hesitation and discussions in the early part of the year, Saudi Arabia launched an oil price war in tandem with the US. America supported the policy to undermine the influence of oil-dependent Russia, something it apparently considered more important than supporting its own fracking sector. Also, the access to cheap imported oil was considered good news for US consumers and industry in general. Whether or not there was a clearly planned and agreed strategy, there seemed to be an unmistakable convergence of interests between the Saudi and US positions in this campaign. This strategy of keeping oil prices down did not necessarily destroy either the Russian or the Iranian economies, however. Instead, the hardest hit oil-producing nations were in South America and Africa, where petro-states such as Libya, Angola, and Nigeria were suffering. But the worst-affected country of all was Venezuela, the most disastrously oil-dependent state in the world. Oil accounts for 96% of exports and more than 40% of government revenues.
This situation was worsened by strict economic sanctions imposed during Barack Obama’s Democratic administration and further intensified since then. The escalation of sanctions by the United States government has created further difficulties for Venezuela, and Maduro blamed the sanctions for an effort to overthrow his government. US involvement in the country since then has also included coup plots, attempted assassinations, and the landing of mercenaries on Venezuela’s shores. The first Trump administration sought to install its preferred president, an unelected and largely unknown right-wing legislator, Juan Guaidó, whose “interim government” failed to win popular backing and was only effective at stealing millions of dollars in US aid funding.
The latest US National Security Strategy document, issued by the White House in November 2025, set the stage for the recent aggression toward the Venezuelan regime:
After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region. We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere. This “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine is a common-sense and potent restoration of American power and priorities, consistent with American security interests (National Security Strategy, 2025: 15).
After capturing Maduro and his wife, Trump stated at a press conference from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, “We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.” He added on Saturday that the goal of the intervention in Venezuela was to take control of the country and its oil resources. “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars,” Trump declared. If there was any resistance, Trump warned of escalating military onslaught. “We are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so”.
Venezuela is known not only for its vast oil reserves but also for its wealth of other vital resources. The country holds notable gold reserves, primarily in the southeast (the Guiana Highlands). Diamond deposits occur in the Guiana region, although they are less extensive than those of gold and bauxite. Venezuela also has documented deposits of copper, nickel, and manganese, along with smaller amounts of coltan and cassiterite associated with emerging mining areas. Surveys suggest that significant quantities of uranium and thorium may be present in the deposits as well.
Major American financial firms, including hedge funds and asset managers such as Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, and T. Rowe Price, are positioning themselves to benefit from Venezuela’s abundant oil and mineral resources. They are targeting distressed assets of the state oil company PDVSA, as well as opportunities in gold, diamonds, and rare-earth minerals. The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that top hedge funds and asset managers are planning to send a delegation of around 20 business leaders to Caracas in March. They will evaluate what one investor described as $500–$750 billion in “investment opportunities,’ focusing on the energy sector and infrastructure over the next five years.
Venezuela holds approximately 300 billion barrels of proven reserves, making up about 17% of the world’s total and slightly surpassing Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, a key point is that roughly 75% of this volume consists of extra-heavy crude from the Orinoco Belt. These oils are similar to bitumen, making them highly viscous under reservoir conditions and especially difficult to extract and refine. Therefore, expecting quick benefits from controlling these resources is unrealistic. It demands significant, long-term investment, and even then, extracting heavy oil is only cost-effective when global oil prices are high.
There is a clear geopolitical motivation behind this aggression toward Venezuela. Trump’s actions can be viewed as a strategic effort to prevent other powers from gaining access to Venezuela’s abundant resources. In this context, Trump’s conflict serves a key geopolitical goal. The invasion of Venezuela and the detention of its president are, as Trump stated on Saturday, intended as a “warning” to “anyone who would threaten American interests.” sovereignty”. Referring to his new National Security Strategy, Trump declared that “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.” Referring to the notorious “blood and iron” speech by the nineteenth-century Prussian military leader Bismarck, Trump hailed the assault as a reaffirmation of the “iron laws that have always determined global power”.
The immediate targets are governments in Latin America that may act against US imperialist interests. Speaking of Colombian President Gustavo Petro, Trump warned in the language of a street thug, “He has to watch his ass.” The Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, added: “America can project our will anywhere, anytime,” drawing a direct comparison between Venezuela and the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities last year sites, “Maduro had his chance,” he sneered, “just like Iran had their chance—until they didn’t”. However, the threats extend beyond Latin America. Trump is warning both allies and enemies across the hemisphere. Besides Venezuela and Iran, the US conducted bombings in five other countries last year: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Nigeria in December. Trump has threatened war with Mexico, suggested annexing Greenland and Canada, and insisted that the Panama Canal remains “non-negotiable” for the US control.
The message to China is explicit and assertive. Just hours before the attack, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro engaged in discussions with a high-level Chinese delegation, headed by Beijing’s Special Representative for Latin American and Caribbean Affairs, Qiu Xiaoqi, emphasising energy cooperation. The US raid, coordinated with this meeting, was a provocative move intended to disrupt the expanding relationship between China and Latin America. China has already surpassed the US as South America’s main trading partner and is projected to become the leading partner across Latin America and the Caribbean by 2035.
The actions taken by the Trump administration are not only criminal but also demonstrate a dangerous level of recklessness. Trump, a sharp critic of the US invasion of Iraq, will now have to heed the words of one of the American architects of the Iraq War, Secretary of State Colin Powell, “If you break it, you own it”. Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, likened these actions to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That invasion caused severe economic collapse, rising unemployment, increased division within the country, more violent resistance, civil strife, and ultimately empowered certain ISIS factions. When President Barack Obama announced the official end of the Iraq war and began the troop withdrawal in 2011, Iraq was left deeply traumatised with a collapsing economy. The conflict lasted eight years, resulting in over 200,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and the loss of 4,492 American service members. The 2003 invasion was a significant and costly error. Even some prominent advocates of the war have since labelled it “a major mistake,” a catastrophe, or “single worst decision ever made”.
Similar to what Trump and his administration have repeatedly announced, namely that they now care about Venezuela and promise freedom and growth for the country, just three weeks before the Iraq War began, then President George W. Bush made similar promises about Iraq. He addressed the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and, in his speech, emphasised the necessity of establishing a “free Iraq”. By “protect[ing] Iraq’s natural resources from sabotage” and ousting the Hussein dictatorship, Bush hoped that Iraqis “can fully share in the progress of our times”. In the period leading up to the 2003 invasion, Iraq was often characterised in various media and political discourse as a nation on the brink of collapse, grappling with profound social and economic decay. Almost the same language can be found in the mainstream media in the West about Venezuela under Maduro.
The ongoing actions against Venezuela are even more reckless than Bush’s campaign in Iraq, appearing as a disaster waiting to happen. On Saturday, Trump announced plans to impose a dictatorship in Venezuela, saying the country would be run by US officials. This overlooks the fact that Venezuela, with its 30 million people and over 350,000 square miles, can’t be governed by Washington insiders. In reality, such an occupation would require hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and a tough urban warfare effort to deal with widespread resistance. Trump underscored this by stating he is not afraid of having “boots on the ground”. The 2003 Iraq invasion involved more than 100,000 coalition troops, with 125,000 from the United States. Over 340,000 US personnel were deployed in the region to support the campaign in Iraq. Iraq, which has a smaller population than Venezuela, had already suffered from ten years of sanctions. The military occupation required to control Venezuela would rapidly lead to a bloody and extended conflict throughout Latin America and potentially beyond.
The aggressive stance of the Trump administration can only be fully understood within the broader crisis of American hegemony. Politically, many concealed motives likely shape Trump’s actions, including efforts to distract from the shocking revelations about the Epstein sex-trafficking network, which involved high-profile figures from the financial sector and government apparatus. Greater US interests are at stake here. The US seeks to counteract its long-term economic decline by resorting to militarism and conflict. The bases of US global dominance have significantly weakened. Gold prices have exceeded $4,300 per ounce, indicating a decline in confidence in the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. With the national debt above $38 trillion, US fiscal liabilities are at record highs. Attempts to seize Venezuela’s oil and the renewed American influence over the Western Hemisphere are viewed by the ruling elite as crucial to maintaining its economic and geopolitical power. All of this could be a prelude to a clear sphere of influence agreement with the powers in the Eastern Hemisphere—China, Russia, and possibly Middle Eastern oil powers.
Before Trump’s assertive campaign against Venezuela and his threats to other nations, this century has already seen tragic wars in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine. These conflicts are a direct result of what Giovanni Arrighi described as a hegemonic transition during a time of systemic chaos, where “the incumbent hegemonic state lacks the means or the will to continue leading the system of states.” This long and protracted period of hegemonic transition from the Euro-Atlantic core to Asian economies, especially China and India, like every other period of hegemonic transition and instability in which “the old is dying, and the new cannot be born”, creates morbid symptoms. In many parts of the world, including the United States and Europe, new forms of authoritarianism have emerged within the context of global crisis, severe austerity measures, economic nationalism, racism and xenophobia.
When a major power or superpower’s influence diminishes, it impacts the global order and creates instability. The United States has been in decline for the past forty years, a trend that became more evident after the Cold War. Despite remaining the world’s leading economic and military power, it faces significant challenges like sluggish economic growth and a long-term decline in its industrial sector. This decline in productive capacity, coupled with the growing disparity between productive and financial wealth, results in repeated financial and economic crises worldwide world. This mainly causes the collapse of the global order and leads many ruling elites to adopt unchecked economic and political nationalism. The West, as a whole, lacks the resources to support its policies in regions like the Middle East, Africa, Ukraine, and Southeast Asia. The emerging powers, on the other hand, aspire to a new world order for the global system but lack the real leadership capacity to achieve it. They are currently unable to assert their authority over regional and global conflicts. As a result, leadership, order, and governance at regional and global levels are no longer assured.
The world is currently in a fragile imbalance as the global hegemon’s decline continues, described aptly by Martin Wolf: “US power has retreated both geo-politically and economically, and we are living, once again, in an era of strident nationalism and xenophobia”. Furthermore, Trump demonstrates imperialist aggression similar to that of the 19th century. These aggressive escalations heightened tensions among the world’s major military powers and led to dangerous conflicts that eventually culminated in World War I – we will need to wait and see the extent to which history rhymes in this instance.
Further Reading on E-International Relations
