The Shockwaves of Venezuela

On January 3, U.S. forces did something many observers thought impossible: they quickly captured and arrested Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s wily, seemingly coup-proof autocrat. For years, Maduro had proved himself an expert in authoritarian survival—crushing at least nine military mutinies and outlasting American economic pressure. But early Saturday morning, he fell practically without a fight. Delta Force helicopters took limited fire as they flew low over Caracas rooftops to Maduro’s bunker, where U.S. troops stormed inside, grabbed him and his wife, and whisked them to an aircraft carrier. Hours later, both were behind bars in New York, facing drug and weapons charges. No American lives were lost, although at least 80 Cubans and Venezuelans, including some civilians, were killed. The whole operation looked so easy that many analysts have reasonably wondered whether regime insiders abetted Maduro’s extraction, in effect staging a palace coup by proxy. At the same time, the operation was a dramatic display of U.S. President Donald Trump’s willingness to cast aside what’s left of the so-called rules-based international order and use military force to assert U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

In the days since, Venezuelans living abroad have celebrated ecstatically. But the country itself has remained quiet. Most people seem to recognize that it’s possible little has really changed. Trump, after all, has left Maduro’s regime largely intact, recognizing Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president, as interim president before she had even publicly accepted the position herself. The question is whether the shifts will remain relatively modest, or if Maduro’s extraction presages bigger changes within both Venezuela and the region.

There is a wide variety of possibilities. Maduro’s removal might facilitate Venezuela’s transition to democracy, tank Cuba’s regime, and advance Trump’s bid to assert U.S. hemispheric dominance. Alternatively, a reshuffled Maduro regime might simply accept more deportees from the United States and give Washington control over its oil reserves, but otherwise change little. The regional shock waves could be limited. In fact, the inability to fundamentally change Venezuela might end up revealing the limits of American power.

But the eventual outcomes will probably fall somewhere in between these two extremes. In the short-term, the consequences for Venezuela will likely be muted, as Trump tries to work with the reconfigured regime to secure his top objective: access to oil. Other Latin American governments might retaliate with words, but most will avoid responding with deeds so as not to incur Trump’s anger. As time goes on, however, the situation may become more fraught. Trump might attack Venezuela again, especially if Rodríguez is unwilling or, constrained by other regime figures, unable to comply with his directives. Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba will likely decrease, weakening (although not necessarily collapsing) the island’s already flagging regime. Colombia could face American intervention, given that its left-wing president—unlike most of its neighbors—seems eager to fight with Trump and that Trump welcomes this dispute. And critically, Latin American countries, especially the larger, more geographically distant ones, may try to further diversify their economic and security relationships to reduce their exposure to an assertive and demanding Washington. Trump’s attack, in other words, could advance or set back his hemispheric dream.

To figure out how Venezuela and the region might change, analysts should first pay attention to the breadth of the Trump administration’s demands of Venezuela’s reshuffled leadership. That will require looking less at the orders and aspirations Trump lists off the cuff in public, which are bound to vary, and more at the reports and leaks about what he and his team are privately pressing Caracas to deliver.

One possibility is that these demands will be narrow: opening up Venezuela’s oil reserves to long-term U.S. control and investment, sidelining certain........

© Foreign Affairs