Trump's Venezuela push tests lessons of the Middle East

The Trump administration has intensified pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, raising questions about whether the United States will try to remove him by force. Washington has been building up forces in the Caribbean since August and has conducted strikes on vessels it said carried drugs. The administration has also acknowledged that the CIA is operating covertly inside Venezuela. Officials say the moves are meant to pressure Maduro toward change, but it remains unclear whether they are bluff or credible steps toward intervention.

The U.S. military posture in the region includes a substantial footprint: roughly 15,000 troops stationed in the Caribbean alongside aircraft, missiles, drones and expeditionary equipment. The deployment, designed to deter and, if necessary, strike, signals a readiness to act without committing to a full-scale invasion. The immediate threat cited by Washington appears to be airstrikes and targeted operations aimed at Maduro’s regime, though officials have warned that the mission could broaden if Maduro does not concede to pressure.

On Nov. 21, Trump reportedly spoke with Maduro and issued an ultimatum for the regime to leave within days. The following week, the United States designated the Cartel de los Soles, a Maduro-linked drug-trafficking organization, as a terrorist group, and officials sealed Venezuelan airspace while the president mused about striking Venezuelan land “very soon.” By Dec. 10, U.S. forces had seized an oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast. U.S. officials have indicated that day-after plans exist in the event Maduro is removed, though details remain undisclosed and it is not clear how far Washington intends to escalate.

Analysts caution that the current course risks repeating the missteps of past U.S. interventions. The Middle East experience offers a sobering catalog: quick, forceful action can overthrow a regime in weeks or months but often evolves into years of instability, insurgency, and costly reconstruction. In Afghanistan, U.S. forces fought for 20 years after an eight-week campaign to topple the Taliban, ultimately failing to install durable democracy. The war entailed about 100,000 troops at the height and left the country with a shattered state, while American casualties and costs ran into trillions of dollars. In Iraq, major combat operations to depose Saddam Hussein ended in a short victory, but a prolonged insurgency followed, requiring the continued presence of U.S. troops for nearly a decade and contributing to broader regional upheaval. Across both campaigns, the human and financial cost, as well as the erosion of credibility, reshaped how policymakers view regime change as a tool of foreign policy.

A separate lesson comes from Libya in 2011, when airstrikes helped topple Muammar Gaddafi with relatively low coalition casualties. Yet Libya’s postconflict era proved unstable, with the country becoming a top transit hub for human smuggling and remaining divided by factional fighting and weak governance. The security vacuum created after regime change in Libya underscored a persistent risk: removing a leader does not guarantee a stable transition or regional security.

In Venezuela, Maduro is broadly unpopular at home and the military is not in a position to stage a quick, monolithic collapse. Yet that reality does not guarantee a smooth transition. The prospect of external intervention—especially a proximity-driven one—would likely bring spillover effects into neighboring countries, potentially triggering new waves of migration, crime, or regional tensions. The United States has historically benefited from distance when managing Middle East crises; in Latin America, proximity increases the likelihood that instability would reverberate across borders and into U.S. soil.

Venezuela’s vast oil wealth amplifies the stakes. Resource-rich states have in the past experienced regime fragility when governance falters or external powers intervene, and the resulting political and economic turmoil can extend for years. The risk of entangling the United States in a “forever war” nearby—where operations could become protracted and politically controversial—remains a central concern for policymakers and the public alike.

Public sentiment reflects caution: polls have shown that a majority of Americans oppose military action in Venezuela, a point that complicated electoral messaging for President Trump, who has long pitched his presidency as an end to costly overseas wars. A shift toward overt force would complicate his political promises to end long-running engagements and could generate domestic political backlash if the outcomes appear costly or inconclusive.

Given the historical record and the regional implications, many analysts argue that nonmilitary tools—economic sanctions, diplomacy, international pressure, and support for civil society—offer a more predictable path to change without inviting a cascade of unintended consequences. Maduro’s regime may be unpopular, but the costs of forcible removal on both sides of the border could be high, and the path to a stable order in Venezuela remains uncertain. In a region with peaceful neighbors and a democratic tradition, the cost of misjudging the moment could be disproportionately borne by civilians in Venezuela and by neighboring countries, complicating a U.S. strategy that seeks to secure regional stability while upholding international norms.

World