Related videos:
In Washington, the debate about Venezuela has become a reflection of the internal power dynamics in the United States.
Two of the most influential media outlets in the world, The Economist and Foreign Policy, offered opposing views on the same scenario: the increasing possibility of a U.S. military intervention against the regime of Nicolás Maduro.
The British weekly The Economist published an extensive analysis titled “War Looms Over Venezuela as Trump Tests the 'America First' Doctrine,” warning that a war is looming over the Caribbean as President Donald Trump deploys aircraft carriers, bombers, and elite forces near the Venezuelan coast.
The magazine stated that the U.S. government, advised by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has redefined the fight against drug trafficking as a “war against narcoterrorism,” a doctrine that allows for justifying military attacks without formally declaring war.
According to that narrative, Maduro leads the so-called 'Cartel of the Suns', and Venezuela is a "terrorist state" responsible for sending drugs and criminals to the United States.
“The effort to overthrow Maduro is barely disguised”, stated The Economist, noting that the Trump administration has already authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations within the country and for the marines to practice amphibious landings in Puerto Rico.
The media opined that the president is on the verge of repeating the mistakes of the "war on terrorism," with a new conflict front in his own hemisphere. It also noted that, although Washington invoked national defense, the strategy lacks a solid political or diplomatic plan for the day after Maduro, a point that is passionately challenged by Venezuelan civil society and the leadership of the elected president, Edmundo Gonzáles and María Corina Machado.
The article emphasized that the Pentagon has already deployed more than 10,000 personnel in the Caribbean, while the USS Gerald R. Ford, the largest aircraft carrier in the world, is making its way to the region.
However, the analysts cited by The Economist believe that the outcome could be unpredictable: a quick and successful intervention like in Panama or Grenada… or a prolonged disaster like in Iraq or Libya.
"A poorly managed intervention could exacerbate anti-American sentiment, worsen migration, and unleash chaos," noted the publication.
Foreign Policy: "Trump must overthrow Maduro"
On the other side of the debate, analyst Matthew Kroenig, vice president of the ‘Atlantic Council’, published a column in Foreign Policy titled “Trump Should Oust Maduro,” in which he argued that overthrowing the Venezuelan leader is not only legitimate but necessary.
Kroenig stated that Venezuela has become the main stronghold of Russia, China, and Iran in the Western Hemisphere, and that its downfall would be a strategic and symbolic blow to restore American influence in Latin America.
“The ousting of Maduro could significantly improve the security of the U.S. in the region,” he wrote. “If Trump manages to establish a lasting pro-American democracy, his success would be comparable to Reagan's in Grenada or Bush's in Panama.”
The author presented three operational scenarios:
- Coercive diplomacy, based on threats to force Maduro out.
- Selective attacks against military and oil facilities.
- A Soleimani-type operation, aimed at directly eliminating the chavista leader.
For Kroenig, a ground invasion is ruled out, but the use of "limited and decisive force" could accelerate a political transition. In his view, Trump's doctrine does not aim to "subdue" but rather to "pacify through power," and Venezuela provides an opportunity to demonstrate this.
A new Cold War landscape
Both analyses agree that Venezuela has become the epicenter of a new global competition, where Washington, Moscow, and Beijing are vying for influence in the Western Hemisphere.
While The Economist fears a historical mistake that could repeat the failures of the past, Foreign Policy sees an opportunity to consolidate an "ally democracy" and redefine Trump's foreign policy in a hemispheric context.
Amid naval maneuvers, tough rhetoric, and leaks about attack plans, a question lingers over the Caribbean: Will the next war of the United States be seen as a "liberation" war… or as a rehash of its old role as a global gendarme?
Filed under: