Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971) is undoubtedly one of the most influential thinkers in American political thought. The New York Times once described him as the “Supreme American Theologian of the Twentieth Century.” As the foremost proponent of Christian Realism, Niebuhr earned the title of the “American conscience”—a designation that remains strikingly relevant, perhaps even more so in the Trumpian era. To adopt a Niebuhrian perspective is to return to the moral conscience of America as one nation under God. This article aims to offer a critical assessment of U.S. actions in Caracas earlier this year through the lens of Reinhold Niebuhr’s thought.
On 3 January 2026, the United States launched “Operation Absolute Resolve,” an operation that extracted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Caracas. The stated objective of the operation was to halt drug trafficking into the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the action as a law-enforcement operation rather than an act of war. He further denied that oil constituted the primary motive, while acknowledging Washington’s concern over the significance presence of US rivals—China, Russia, and Iran—in Venezuela’s strategic sectors.
These concerns are not unfounded. The China Development Bank has extended approximately US$19 billion in oil-for-loans deals to Venezuela in order to secure energy supplies beyond areas of US dominance. Both countries in 2023 elevated ties in 2023 to an “all weather strategic partnership”. Iran has reportedly established drone-manufacturing facilities on Venezuelan territory, while Russia and Venezuela have finalized a comprehensive strategic partnership covering energy, mining, and defense cooperation. From Washington’s perspective, Venezuela could pose a grave security threat should it permit rival powers to establish a military presence in the Western Hemisphere.
US actions in Caracas can be examined through several dimensions of Niebuhrian thought. With regard to power, Niebuhr consistently affirmed the necessity of political authority and coercive force as instruments for the pursuit of justice. He was emphatically not a pacifist. As the preeminent power emerging from the Second World War, Niebuhr believed that the United States bore a responsibility to help shape a just and peaceful international order beyond its own borders. America, in his view, was called to restrain the forces of anarchy in international relations by exercising its preponderant power responsibly—both in self-defence and in the maintenance of global order.
At the same time, Niebuhr warned that every use of power is morally ambiguous. Nevertheless, he argued that action, even when morally imperfect, is sometimes preferable to inaction that allows destructive forces to flourish unchecked. Power, therefore, must be exercised prudently to prevent what he famously described as the “children of darkness”—political actors driven by excessive ambition and the will to dominate—from prevailing.
Applied to the Venezuelan case, U.S. military power could arguably be used to deter Caracas from deepening strategic cooperation with American rivals. The Trump administration might legitimately draw a red line against the establishment of foreign military bases on Venezuelan soil. Yet Operation Absolute Resolve appears less as an exercise in responsible deterrence than as a display of overwhelming force. Given that Venezuela does not constitute an imminent threat to US national security, the Trump administration should have pursued diplomacy rather than resorting to an overseas operation. This move departed from Niebuhr’s emphasis on restraint and prudence in the exercise of power and underscored the shortcomings of Trump’s diplomatic approach.
More critically, a Niebuhrian perspective raises serious questions about the moral legitimacy of the operation. Niebuhr repeatedly warned the United States against the temptation of imperialism—the impulse to dominate other nations in the name of moral or ideological ideals. Such behavior, he argued, undermines the very just and peaceful international community the United States claims to promote. What, then, entitles the Trump administration to act in this manner? Is America so exceptional as to place itself above the norms it demands of others?
Niebuhr firmly rejected any theology of American exceptionalism grounded in divine election. Instead, he advocated humility as a central political virtue. For Niebuhr, humility is not weakness but a profound source of moral strength, enabling nations to act responsibly within a tragic and imperfect world. Pride, by contrast, constitutes the gravest sin. In The Irony of American History (1952), Niebuhr explicitly denied that the United States was a divinely chosen nation, warning that its immense power actually placed it in a morally precarious position, making leadership with moral clarity more difficult rather than easier.
Furthermore, Niebuhr insisted that American power must be held morally accountable through international institutions, particularly the United Nations. The U.S. operation in Caracas, however, constituted a blatant violation of state sovereignty as enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Lacking international authorization, the operation was devoid of legal and moral legitimacy and amounted to a direct challenge to an international order based on respect for sovereignty. The action conveyed the troubling message that military power ultimately has the final say. As warned by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, such behavior sets a dangerous precedent. The U.S. action has intensified anxieties in the Global South that sovereignty offers little protection against the coercive power of dominant states, marking a shift from international law to a realist logic in which power overrides legality.
In the international realm, Niebuhr’s overriding concern was the prevention of anarchy and the preservation of a just order. While he recognized that a balance of power could serve as an instrument toward this goal, the U.S. action in Caracas undermined rather than preserved such equilibrium. The operation weakened the normative foundations of the global order. How, then, can the United States credibly condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine if its own actions disregard principles of legitimacy and sovereignty, thereby opening the door to international anarchy? Rather than demonstrating moral leadership, the operation revealed a troubling deficit of moral authority.
Undeniably, Venezuela under Maduro posed significant challenges to U.S. security interests, and the Trump administration retains the right to self-defence. Yet, for Niebuhr, self-defence must rest on a firm moral foundation and take into account broader consequences. Operation Absolute Resolve fails to meet Niebuhrian standards precisely because it abandons restraint and inflicts harm upon the just international order it claims to defend. Power was exercised with insufficient moral reflection and little regard for its long-term ramifications. Niebuhr insisted that military power must serve moral power and when the latter is absent, what remains is political realism stripped of its Christian ethical core. Such an approach does not reflect the character of a nation genuinely committed to being “under God.”
Further Reading on E-International Relations
