By admin 
Introduction
In a move that signals a seismic shift in American foreign policy, President Donald Trump has declared that the United States will “run” Venezuela for an unspecified duration. This announcement follows the dramatic seizure of Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by U.S. forces. Speaking from Mar-a-Lago, Trump framed the intervention as an effort to exert economic and political dominance over the nation of 30 million, specifically eyeing its vast oil reserves.
A New Era of “Guardianship”
The administration’s strategy appears to be a precarious blend of economic coercion and military guardianship. Trump named Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president, as the interim leader, stating she would remain in power as long as she “does what we want.” However, Rodríguez has already signaled defiance, denouncing the U.S. presence as a “barbarity” and asserting that Maduro remains the rightful head of state.
While Trump’s rhetoric is blunt, his top advisors, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have attempted to soften the language. Rubio distanced himself from the word “running,” instead describing the situation as “running policy” through a quarantine on oil shipments. Despite these semantic differences, the goal remains clear: Washington intends to use Venezuela’s oil as leverage until the government aligns with U.S. national interests.
The Return of Gunboat Diplomacy
The current operation marks a departure from recent U.S. foreign policy, harkening back to the “gunboat diplomacy” of the 19th and early 20th centuries. By invoking the spirit of President William McKinley—who oversaw the seizure of the Philippines and Puerto Rico—Trump is framing the control of Venezuelan resources as a matter of reclaiming “stolen” property. He argued that the socialist regime had illegally seized billions in American oil assets, and he intends to take them back by force.
This “nation-building” approach is fraught with contradictions. While Trump’s MAGA base has traditionally been skeptical of “forever wars,” this intervention threatens to enmesh the U.S. in a complex, long-term occupation. Trump has already dismissed these concerns, even suggesting a “second wave” of military action—”boots on the ground”—if the U.S. faces resistance from the Venezuelan people or military.
High Stakes and Uncertain Outcomes
The risks are immense. Venezuela is twice the size of Iraq, and any transition will require the cooperation of a deeply divided military. As scholars like John Polga-Hecimovich note, if the Venezuelan armed forces splinter, the region could descend into widespread violence.
Furthermore, the moral and legal questions loom large:
-
Can the U.S. truly install a pliant government while claiming to promote democracy?
-
How will neighboring countries, like Colombia, react to this projection of power?
For now, the U.S. enters an era of “the unknown,” where the line between national security and imperial overreach has become increasingly blurred.