Venezuela, due to possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves at the beginning of the 21st century, its strategic geographical location, and its multipolar foreign policy preferences, has become one of the central actors in global power struggles. This political orientation, which began to take shape during the Hugo Chávez era and has been maintained under the Nicolás Maduro administration, aimed to keep oil and natural resource revenues under national control and to develop long-term economic, financial, and military collaborations with non-Western global actors, primarily China and Russia. However, these preferences directly contradicted the hegemonic order historically established by the United States (USA) in Latin America and transformed Venezuela from being merely a regional actor into a strategic struggle area where hegemonic capacity is tested over global energy and financial networks. In this context, since the early 2000s, US policies towards Venezuela have been conducted through the structural and sophisticated tools of modern imperialism rather than classical military invasion or direct intervention methods.
Modern imperialism, embodied by the form of intervention in question, uses more indirect tools instead of eliminating state sovereignty through the open use of military force. These tools include economic sanctions, financial siege, diplomatic isolation, and the politicization of international norms. The aim here is to erode the state’s capacity for independent action. In the case of Venezuela, the comprehensive sanctions applied by the USA have targeted not only the political power but the society directly. These pressures, which narrow the state’s revenue sources, have weakened the sustainability of public services and seriously eroded social welfare. This situation clearly reveals the fundamental rationality of modern imperialism. The aim here is not only to overthrow a leader but to weaken state capacity and internal political resilience in the long term. In the context of Latin America, this approach has shown historical continuity. For instance, the overthrow of the Jacobo Árbenz administration in Guatemala in 1954 via Operation PBSUCCESS was an early example of the US capacity to render governments dysfunctional without resorting to direct invasion.
Similarly, the economic and political siege conducted against the Salvador Allende government in Chile between 1970-1973 and the Contra interventions and economic pressures applied to the Sandinista administration in Nicaragua in the 1980s constitute the historical antecedents of this structural intervention method in the context of Latin America. These examples make the historical and structural background of the form of modern imperialism currently embodied in Venezuela visible and point to the continuity of this process.
The legitimation of these structural pressure mechanisms through normative discourses stands out as one of the distinguishing features of modern imperialism. The USA has systematically delegitimized the Maduro administration through accusations associated with authoritarianism, human rights violations, democratic regression, and drug trafficking. This set of discourses, while producing legitimacy at the international level on the one hand, has made it possible for the opposition to be recognized as the “legitimate representative” on the other, thereby placing the intervention within a justified and visible framework. In this context, the selective and instrumental use of law and human rights norms clearly shows that modern imperialism operates not through universal values but in line with strategic interests. In this process, the USA has seriously eroded Venezuela’s state capacity and political resilience, deepened social polarization, and made political instability evident. Furthermore, the fact that human rights violations experienced in countries positioned as US allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, are largely ignored makes the political nature of the normative pressure directed at Venezuela and the structural dimension of the intervention more evident. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi and freedom of expression violations in Saudi Arabia, the suppression of the opposition and restriction of civil society after the 2013 coup in Egypt, and international criticisms regarding the occupation and genocide policies in Palestinian territories in Israel reveal the double standard practices of the USA in maintaining its relations with these countries. This situation shows that modern imperialism is not limited only to the direct use of force but can also selectively reproduce sovereignty relations through legal and normative tools.
This process has turned into a harsher, personalized, and punitive form of discourse during the Trump administration periods, and especially today. Washington has explained targeting Maduro to public opinion with justifications such as “drug trafficking,” “connection with terrorism,” and “usurpation of the democratic order,” and by framing Maduro as a criminal actor, it has presented the intervention not as a regime change but as a so-called “international security” issue. This strategy shows how the capacity of modern imperialism to produce normative legitimacy operates through placing leaders in the position of criminals and labeling states as “problematic areas.” Thus, intervention is removed from being merely a political choice and is legitimized as a mandatory and inevitable regulation through international law and norms.
Another element that stands out in the statements of the Trump administration is the clear definition of the political design regarding Venezuela’s future from the outside. Discourses such as “transition administration,” “reconstruction,” and “normalization” show that Venezuela is positioned not as a sovereign political subject but as an area that needs to be reshaped within the international system. This approach shows that modern imperialism is not content with merely suppressing the existing power; it also aims to reconstruct the political architecture of the state through external intervention. This strategy, which bears similarities to the “transition period” practices seen in the Iraq and Libya examples, aims to make Venezuela more open to economic and political dependency relations in the long term, thereby making results such as the structural erosion and termination of national sovereignty inevitable. As a matter of fact, this process is not limited to a change in power but clearly embodies the logic of taking the functionality of state institutions and national decision-making capacity under control through indirect means.
However, the most critical problem at this point is that the structural intervention model developed by the USA towards Venezuela carries the quality of a reference for other global powers. In this context, it is probable that other imperialist powers like Russia will obtain strategic interests regarding how international law and norms can be used in a selective and instrumental manner by taking the operating modes of “modern imperialism” tools applied in the Venezuela example as a reference for themselves. In other words, other global powers may create new areas of influence and expansion in line with their own strategic interests by taking the imperialist method applied by the USA in Venezuela as a reference.
From Russia’s perspective, the capture of Maduro by the USA and his removal from the country would strengthen the perception that the USA follows a strategy that prioritizes the use of force by pushing international law into the background. Moscow may evaluate this situation as an opportunity to expand its military presence in Ukraine and even deepen the invasion. By citing the operation carried out by the USA in Venezuela as an example, it may try to legitimize its own interventions with discourses of “preventive security” and “ensuring stability.” Furthermore, this development may pave the ground for Russia to increase pressure on the Baltic countries located on NATO’s eastern flank and to make moves that test the European security architecture.
From China’s perspective, the neutralization of Maduro by the USA would be perceived as a direct threat not only to economic interests in Latin America but also to the global balance of power. Venezuela holds an important position in terms of China’s energy security and global investment strategy. The USA carrying out an operation on this scale may bring the question “who is the next target?” to the agenda more strongly in Beijing. In this context, China may evaluate a period where the USA’s attention is concentrated on Latin America as a suitable opportunity to accelerate its strategic plans regarding Taiwan. It will become increasingly difficult for the USA to simultaneously conduct operations aimed at regime change in Latin America and maintain its deterrence in the Asia-Pacific.
The scenario of Maduro being taken to the USA has the potential to create a domino effect on a global scale. While Russia may adopt a more aggressive attitude on the Ukraine and NATO borders; China may place its military and political options regarding Taiwan on the table more openly. Thus, the USA’s Venezuela-centered intervention may trigger simultaneous security crises in Europe and Asia, dragging the international system into a more fragile and unstable structure. Additionally, the USA targeting and neutralizing Maduro with accusations such as being the leader of a “narco-terrorist organization” will fuel sovereignty debates throughout the entire American Continent, primarily in Latin America, and increase anti-Americanism on the continent. As anti-Americanism increases on the continent, it is likely that regional cooperation and integration efforts will strengthen, and political and diplomatic resistance against the USA’s interventionist policies will rise. This situation creates an environment that could deepen serious political polarization within the USA in the long term and even bring the possibility of internal conflict or civil war to the agenda.
Another point that draws attention in this process is that the USA carried out the operation against Venezuelan leader Maduro following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. This timing shows that the moves in question by the USA are not limited to a local crisis context but are shaped within the framework of broader-scale global hegemonic strategies. Indeed, Netanyahu’s visit carries a quality that cannot be reduced merely to bilateral diplomatic contacts and reflects the USA’s politics of influence conducted with its allies in the Middle East and Israel’s efforts to produce legitimacy for its policies in the region. In this context, the realization of the operation against Venezuela-Maduro immediately after the diplomatic contact in question indicates that Washington does not treat crises in different geographies as disconnected developments. In other words, a distinct structural parallelism emerges between the security and power politics institutionalized via Israel in the Middle East and the pressure policies directed at regimes resisting US hegemony in Latin America. This parallelism shows that the modern imperialist order is built upon a systemic logic of domination that operates trans-geographically and simultaneously. In this framework, interventions against Maduro can be read as a reflection of the USA’s capacity to maintain global strategic interests and produce legitimacy at the international level rather than as isolated political moves.
This operation also possesses strategic importance in domestic politics for the Trump administration. Trump, experiencing a loss of votes in the country and needing to rebuild his reputation in public opinion, aimed to reinforce the strong leader image in the eyes of the public and re-establish his political legitimacy through a harsh stance and intervention against Maduro. However, the negative agenda created in the media by the Epstein documents and similar scandals directed at Trump constitutes a pressure element for the administration. In this context, foreign policy moves such as the Venezuela operation function as strategic tools that serve not only in the context of foreign relations but also to shape the domestic political agenda and distract attention from negative developments. Thus, the intervention has become a tool used simultaneously for the purposes of both protecting the USA’s global interests and strengthening the president’s position in domestic politics.
The strategic economic dimension of the operation becomes even more evident with Donald Trump’s statements. Trump argued that the rights historically possessed by the USA over Venezuela’s oil and energy resources were “taken illegally” and defended that these resources must be taken back. The blockade and sanctions applied especially to oil tankers seized off the coast of Venezuela are directly linked to Washington’s strategy of controlling the flow of oil revenues through economic pressure. Trump clearly revealed the USA’s desire to take a direct role in the energy sector by stating that the seized oil resources would be opened to US companies and that the country’s oil infrastructure would be repaired and operated by American firms.
These statements show that the anti-Maduro policy is not conducted solely on ideological or democratic grounds, but that geoeconomic interests, specifically the goal of strengthening the USA’s global economic and strategic position through energy resources, are also at the center of the operation. Trump’s rhetoric of “we will run Venezuela” further clarifies this strategic approach. The expression in question reveals the USA’s desire not only to apply military and economic pressure against the Maduro regime but also to indirectly control Venezuela’s fundamental economic resources and management mechanisms. Thus, the operation can be evaluated as a comprehensive geoeconomic move aimed at reinforcing Washington’s regional and global strategic interests through energy dependencies and economic dominance.
The Venezuela example concretely reveals the mode of operation of 21st-century modern imperialism. Because the USA’s operation against the Maduro administration was conducted through economic pressure, financial siege, diplomatic isolation, and normative discourses rather than classical military invasion methods, and in this way, state capacity and national sovereignty were eroded in the long term. Furthermore, Trump’s statements and the “we will run Venezuela” rhetoric point to the USA’s desire to establish global strategic superiority through energy resources and management mechanisms, not just a regional intervention. This situation clearly reveals that the international system has collapsed, and the traditional borders of state sovereignty are becoming increasingly invalid, and at the same time, international law is used in a selective and instrumental manner by great powers.
Moreover, this intervention by the USA has not only set a precedent for global actors but has also fueled sovereignty debates throughout the entire Americas. Because the operation increases anti-Americanism among regional states, deepens political polarization, and reshapes cooperation and integration efforts in Latin America. At the same time, since the operation was carried out within the framework of Israel’s strategic relations with Washington, it establishes a direct link between alliance dynamics in the Middle East and hegemonic intervention in Latin America, showing that the USA’s global intervention capacity is embodied in a way that creates simultaneous and structural effects in different geographies. Thus, the Venezuela example clearly reveals that it remains not merely a regional crisis but that in the 21st century, power politics erode international law and normative frameworks, the international system transforms into a structure that is increasingly fragile, unstable, and open to hegemonic competition, and it produces long-term political and strategic effects in both the Americas and the Middle East.
