Donald Trump’s dramatic claim that the United States will “run” Venezuela after the capture of President Nicolás Maduro may sound bold, but experts warn the plan is far more fragile than the former president suggests.
According to political analysts, Washington’s ability to influence Venezuela’s future hinges on avoiding serious strategic errors that could quickly unravel the operation. In a surprise overnight action, U.S. forces struck military targets in Caracas and detained Maduro, whom American authorities have long accused of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism.
Hours later, Trump appeared on television alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, declaring that the U.S. would oversee Venezuela “until a safe, proper, and judicious transition” could be arranged. The announcement stunned international observers and alarmed longtime U.S. allies, who saw it as an unprecedented intrusion into a sovereign nation’s governance.
Trump also framed the intervention in economic terms, promising that major American oil companies would invest billions to repair Venezuela’s crumbling infrastructure and restart production. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but years of sanctions, mismanagement, and political instability have severely reduced output.
Despite the speed and scale of the operation, experts caution that this moment represents a dangerous turning point rather than a clear victory.
Mike Albertus, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, argues that the U.S. can only exert limited control if it avoids deploying American administrators or troops inside Venezuela. In his view, influence would likely come through pressure tactics directives, ultimatums, and threats rather than direct governance.
Albertus also warned that attempting to establish U.S. authority on the ground could backfire, noting that Washington lacks the local presence needed to manage day-to-day realities in the country. While a full-scale war with Venezuela’s military is unlikely due to the vast imbalance in power, missteps could still fuel instability and resistance.
Following Maduro’s detention, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as president by the National Assembly, adding another layer of uncertainty. Trump claimed that Rodríguez had expressed a willingness to cooperate fully with U.S. demands, though her public statements have shifted noticeably. Initially insisting Maduro remained Venezuela’s legitimate leader, she has since called for engagement with Washington, according to international media reports.
Trump, however, has continued issuing public threats, warning Rodríguez that failure to comply would result in consequences “even bigger than Maduro’s.” Those remarks prompted some Republicans to walk back the rhetoric. Rubio emphasized cooperation, while Senator Tom Cotton clarified that “running Venezuela” meant forcing new leaders to meet U.S. conditions ending drug and weapons trafficking, expelling foreign militant allies, and rejoining the international community.
Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, now face trial in New York on narco-terrorism charges, which both have repeatedly denied. Maduro has long argued that U.S. drug enforcement claims are a pretext for regime change and access to Venezuela’s oil wealth.
The intervention has drawn widespread condemnation across Latin America, with European partners warning that the escalation could destabilize the region. It follows months of pressure from Trump, including naval buildups near South America and aggressive maritime operations that Venezuela disputes.
As global attention remains fixed on Caracas, analysts agree on one point: attempting to “run” Venezuela from Washington is far easier to declare than to accomplish and the margin for error is dangerously small.
Comments
Post a Comment