Why Venezuela could become a trap for the US and what mistakes Trump made
In the early hours of January 3, US forces bombed Caracas, blacking out the capital, and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from his compound at Fort Tiuna.
This dramatic first step, while effectively executed, was obviously taken without preparing any subsequent steps in advance.
Read more about why Trump needed this operation and where it may lead in the article by Stephen Holmes for Project Syndicate: Trump breaks the rules: what an attack on Venezuela would mean and what the US is planning.
The administration cannot decide whether the operation’s purpose was law enforcement or regime change.
But the administration sees no need to reconcile the contradiction and has offered a familiar grab bag of justifications.
The military operation would bring justice and prosperity to Venezuelans; interdict fentanyl (though Venezuela does not produce any); stop illegal immigration into the US; fight "narco-terrorism" (though Maduro does not control the Tren de Aragua gang); gain compensation for oil assets Venezuela supposedly "stole" from US companies; bar Iran and China from the Western hemisphere; throttle Cuba’s subsidized oil supplies and threaten its leaders with the Maduro treatment; and win praise and support from Venezuelan exiles in Florida.
To this miscellany of publicly announced reasons can be added Trump’s undisguised desire to demonstrate that he has "superseded" all previous US presidents. But the sheer profusion of explanation and excuses mocks the very idea of justification.
The administration’s rationales function as chaff, designed to overwhelm rather than persuade. The Washington Office on Latin America calls it "theater." Showcasing America’s irresistible power was itself an aim, not just collateral spectacle.
Flouting the United Nations Charter demonstrates that Trump answers to no one, least of all to a multilateral order that constrains lesser powers.
Analysts who argue that oil is "the real reason" or that regime change was "always the plan" credit the administration with more coherence than it deserves. As one analyst observes, they mistake "chaos" for "improvisation" and "restraint" for mere "selectivity."
The truth is messier: oil is one motive among several, and never reconciled with the others.
Trump wants Venezuela’s hydrocarbons. He wants to look tough on drugs. He wants to please Florida voters. He wants to humiliate a leftist adversary. And he wants to send a message to Cuba and China.
These objectives pull in different directions, and no one in the administration has done the work of asking how they fit together or how to prioritize. The result is policy as bricolage – rationales stapled to whatever power is available.
Meanwhile, the Venezuelan regime has not collapsed. Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, has already been sworn in as president.
Whether she is prepared to meet US demands remains unclear.
Who governs Venezuela now? "A group." How long will the US be involved? Until there is a "safe transition." What if the regime fights back? A "second wave." What if that fails? Silence.
The administration has no answer, because it has not thought ahead. Freedom from justification, in Trump’s hands, means renunciation of foresight.
By declaring one sham "emergency" after another, Trump has abandoned any effort to prepare for the real emergencies that are bound to come. He resembles the boy who cried wolf, shredding American credibility and making future allied support less likely.
But such unilateral gambits cannot rally the voluntary support needed in a genuine emergency. And the problem extends beyond lost credibility abroad. More precisely, America’s loss of credibility reflects the collapse of critical thinking among its gutted and MAGA-colonized national security establishment.