ALWAGHT- According to a Guardian analysis, the US bombardment of Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro signals a risky revival of explicit US imperial aggression in the region.
An analysis by Tiago Rogero for The Guardian frames the US attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro as a clear sign that Washington is returning to open, force-based domination in Latin America, with Venezuela’s oil wealth a primary target. The assault, framed by President Trump as a statement of hemispheric dominance, is described as a modern extension of the Monroe Doctrine through what his administration calls a “Trump corollary,” advocating expanded US military presence in the region.
Rogero situates the Venezuelan operation within over two centuries of US interventionism in Latin America, recalling historical examples such as the 19th-century invasion of Mexico, repeated occupations and covert operations in Cuba, long-term control over Haiti, and covert support for coups and authoritarian regimes in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. While these earlier interventions were mostly covert, Venezuela marks a significant departure as the first overt US military strike on a South American country in decades.
Historians cited in the analysis, including Mauricio Santoro and Alan McPherson, stress that the Venezuela operation is unprecedented since the 1989 invasion of Panama, signaling a striking return to explicit US imperialism in the region. The Guardian notes that the intervention is explicitly tied to securing Venezuela’s oil resources, with Trump signaling US control until a “proper transition” occurs, raising concerns over legitimizing military-backed resource extraction.
The international reaction has been swift and critical, with China demanding Maduro’s release and Latin American governments warning that the US operation violates international law and threatens regional stability. Rogero concludes that history suggests such interventions rarely produce lasting stability, and the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president may instead trigger a prolonged political and social crisis rather than the orderly transition claimed by Washington.
