On a dark, moonless evening in September 2025, American naval vessels operating in the Caribbean Sea fired upon a Venezuelan ship, resulting in the deaths of eleven individuals. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the incident as a routine drug interdiction effort. However, for observers of the steadily worsening ties between the U.S. and Venezuela over almost thirty years, this deadly strike symbolized a far more alarming development: the culmination of decades marked by failed strategies, botched coup attempts, and escalating tensions that have brought the two countries perilously close to armed conflict.
Currently, analysts assess the chance of military hostilities at roughly 33% by the end of the year. More than 6,500 U.S. troops are stationed nearby, with F-35 fighter jets patrolling Venezuelan airspace, while President Donald Trump has officially labeled the nation’s struggle against drug cartels an “armed conflict.” The real question is no longer if Washington will intensify its actions, but whether it has absorbed any lessons from three decades of failed interventions.
Regrettably, the answer seems negative.
The current escalation followed the contentious July 28, 2024 presidential election in Venezuela. Although Nicolás Maduro’s administration claimed victory with 51.2% of votes, opposition contender Edmundo González asserts he secured roughly 67%, based on validated voting records from numerous polling stations. The Carter Center ruled the election as failing to meet international standards and deemed it undemocratic.
Following this, González sought refuge in Spain in September 2024 after spending thirty-two days concealed inside the Dutch embassy and eventually leaving aboard a Spanish military plane. Opposition leader María Corina Machado alleged that González faced “growing threats, legal citations, arrest orders, and even blackmail attempts” endangering his life.
The Trump administration responded with clear military measures. Since September, U.S. forces have carried out at least four lethal attacks on suspected drug vessels, resulting in fifteen fatalities. The administration informed Congress confidentially that drug cartels are engaged in an “armed attack” against the U.S., asserting war powers without legislative approval—a broad interpretation that transforms drug interdiction efforts into declared warfare.
In reply, Venezuela has prepared militarily. Maduro enacted a decree extending emergency authority, empowering him to mobilize troops nationwide and place control of public services and the oil sector under military command should a U.S. incursion occur. Venezuelan forces have also engaged in amphibious combat drills, while Maduro declared “Christmas in October” and stationed 25,000 soldiers at the borders—clear indications of war readiness.
However, this confrontation did not arise suddenly; it represents the bitter outgrowth of nearly thirty years of U.S. involvement that repeatedly failed to meet its objectives.
Relations began to sour following Hugo Chávez’s election in 1999. Although U.S.-Venezuela ties had been stable during the 1990s, Chávez’s “socialist” and “anti-imperialist” platform marked a radical change.
The first major rupture occurred on April 11, 2002, when military officers briefly ousted Chávez for 47 hours. Business figure Pedro Carmona was installed as president and dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court. The George W. Bush administration’s swift recognition of the coup government severely damaged U.S. credibility, even after officials reversed their stance following the putsch’s collapse.
This set a precedent that recurred for decades: U.S. backing for regime change via illegal methods, followed by failure and blame. The 2002-2003 oil strike which shut down production for two months under tacit U.S. support, also failed to remove Chávez but devastated Venezuela’s economy.
Ties worsened amid escalating diplomatic expulsions reflecting mounting hostility. Chávez expelled U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy in 2008 following an alleged coup attempt. Maduro followed with three expulsions in 2013, three more in 2014, and another round in 2018. The final rupture came in 2019 when Washington recognized opposition figure Juan Guaidó as interim president, causing the complete exit of U.S. diplomatic staff.
One of the clearest signs of intervention failure is the sanctions policy. Since 2005, Washington has rolled out twelve separate sanctions packages, amounting to one of the most extensive economic embargoes in the Western Hemisphere.
The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign sharply intensified between 2017 and 2020, barring Venezuela from U.S. financial markets and targeting state oil company PDVSA. Other sectors affected include gold, mining, and banking. The outcome? Oil export earnings plunged from $4.8 billion in 2018 to merely $477 million in 2020.
Despite this, Maduro stayed in control. The Biden administration briefly eased some sanctions in October 2023 in return for electoral concessions, only to reinstate them in April 2024 after Venezuela failed to fulfill those promises. The current administration has also enacted “secondary tariffs”—a novel sanction targeting countries that import Venezuelan oil—and raised Maduro’s bounty to $50 million.
Currently, the U.S. holds 431 sanctions against Venezuelan persons and organizations, targeting 88 individuals and 46 entities. The humanitarian toll has been devastating, yet the regime remains intact.
Aside from sanctions, the U.S. has participated in or backed no fewer than five major coups and military actions since 2002. The April 2019 “Operation Freedom” involved Guaidó’s attempt to ignite a military revolt supported by the National Guard, but it collapsed within hours as commanders stayed loyal to Maduro.
Notably, Operation Gideon in May 2020 featured ex-U.S. Green Beret Jordan Goudreau leading a mercenary raid with sixty Venezuelan dissidents and two former American Special Forces soldiers. Venezuelan troops killed six invaders and captured most others, including the two Americans, in what became known as the “Bay of Piglets.”
In 2025, under the second Trump administration, the U.S. has deployed eight warships carrying over 4,000 troops alongside a nuclear submarine to the Caribbean—the largest military buildup so far.
Alongside military and economic pressure, the U.S. has consistently supported Venezuelan opposition forces, notably through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Funding grew from $257,800 in 1999 to $2.66 million by 2019 for NED initiatives.
The NED trained key opposition leaders, including Juan Guaidó, who participated in insurrection training in Belgrade, Serbia in 2005. These tactics embody classic “color revolution” strategies, manipulating civil society and financing opposition movements to simulate genuine grassroots uprisings for regime overthrow.
To legitimize military actions, the Trump administration created a legal basis branding Venezuelan officials as narco-terrorists. In 2020, the U.S. indicted Maduro on federal narco-terrorism charges, accusing him of leading the “Cartel de los Soles.” The indictment asserts that Maduro directs a drug trafficking group that “uses cocaine as a weapon against America.”
In 2025, the administration designated both the Tren de Aragua gang and Cartel de los Soles as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, providing grounds for military strikes. Still, experts at Caracas Chronicles point out that the “Cartel de los Soles” is not a traditional cartel but rather a “catch-all term” for various military-political-criminal alliances—“a system that the regime regulates” rather than a single entity.
After three decades of escalating efforts, what has the United States accomplished? Maduro remains firmly in power. Venezuela has strengthened its alliances with Russia, China, and Iran. The humanitarian disaster has intensified dramatically. Multiple coup attempts have only solidified authoritarian rule. Sanctions have crippled the economy but failed to topple the regime.
The global community is increasingly skeptical of American interventionism. While the U.S., U.K., and most Western countries refuse to acknowledge Maduro’s election win, Russia and China have congratulated him. Latin American leaders such as Colombia’s Gustavo Petro have denounced U.S. strikes as “acts of tyranny.” The United Nations has called for inquiries into whether U.S. actions breach international maritime law.
As the U.S. approaches the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela, history offers a stark caution. Washington has spent trillions attempting to reshape the Middle East through military campaigns with catastrophic outcomes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. Now, stretched thin with many international obligations, it contemplates another intervention—this time within its own hemisphere.
The Venezuelan situation highlights the profound failure of U.S. foreign policy over the past thirty years. While investing heavily in distant nation-building, America largely neglected its own region. When engaging with Venezuela, it opted for antagonism over dialogue, sanctions over diplomacy, and attempted coups over negotiations.
This path risks creating a quagmire vastly worse than prior interventions. Military conflict would likely lead to prolonged warfare, massive refugee crises, further radicalization of Latin American politics opposed to U.S. interests, and more extensive involvement by Russia and China. Venezuela’s complex geography—mountains, cities, and dense jungle—would complicate any military effort enormously.
Three decades of broken policy call for a major reassessment.
A fresh strategy is urgently needed—one that favors diplomatic dialogue over threats of force, multilateral cooperation over unilateral sanctions, and long-term stability over fleeting regime change fantasies. This requires accepting that the United States cannot simply bomb or sanction its way to a democratic Venezuela.
It also means acknowledging that attempts at regime change have repeatedly backfired, empowering the very regimes they aimed to overthrow. Sanctions primarily hurt ordinary citizens while giving authoritarian leaders a scapegoat for economic collapse.
Most importantly, it involves drawing lessons from three decades of missteps before launching yet another failed foreign policy venture. The American public deserves better than to witness its military caught in yet another unwinnable war. The Venezuelan people deserve better than to be collateral damage in one more botched intervention.
The current course leads only to greater loss of life, more suffering, and continued strategic failure. After thirty years of declining relations marked by coups, sanctions, and enmity, perhaps it is time to pursue a drastically different path: diplomacy, engagement, and respect for sovereignty.
Original article: libertarianinstitute.org
About the Author
