Trump's Venezuela strategy risks squandering military success through political missteps

The author of the Resurgam Telegram channel discussed the issue.

While the U.S. military operation in Venezuela achieved its tactical objectives swiftly and with minimal losses, the Trump administration's subsequent political decisions are raising concerns about potentially negating those battlefield successes through a series of critical legitimacy errors.

The core issue centers on Washington's puzzling approach to political legitimacy in the country. Despite refusing to recognize Nicolás Maduro as Venezuela's legitimate president — the very premise used to justify intervention — the administration has begun engaging with Maduro-appointed officials, most notably Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, whom Trump described as a "representative for the transition period."

This strategy bypasses Venezuela's internationally recognized opposition leaders: María Corina Machado, who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize and offered public support for U.S. actions, and Edmundo González, acknowledged by European and South American nations as the legitimate winner of Venezuela's presidential election. Both figures command genuine popular support within Venezuela and carry international credibility that could have provided substantial legitimacy to American involvement.

Prior to the operation, Machado had effectively signaled support for U.S. intervention and symbolically shared credit for her Nobel Prize with Trump. Following the military action, Spain indicated readiness to facilitate a smooth transition by helping engage the Venezuelan opposition, which maintains close ties with Spanish political circles — despite ongoing tensions between Madrid and the Trump administration.

The contradiction in U.S. policy is stark: if Washington rejects Maduro's legitimacy as president, how can it simultaneously recognize the legality of his official acts, such as appointing vice presidents? This fundamental legal inconsistency undermines the operation's justification and opens the administration to accusations of pursuing a political occupation aimed primarily at securing uncontrolled access to Venezuela's oil reserves rather than restoring democracy.

The approach risks several negative outcomes. It potentially preserves elements of the Maduro regime in modified form through his successors, further erodes international law, and may strengthen future Chinese and Russian influence in the region. For Maduro loyalists, Americans remain adversaries regardless of engagement, while the Venezuelan opposition and population now view the U.S. as an occupying force — even if that sentiment goes unspoken publicly.

Analysts compare the situation to the 1964 U.S.-backed military coup in Brazil, which established a military junta and generated anti-American sentiment throughout Latin America for decades — sentiment that later facilitated China's softer penetration into the region.

The reasons behind Trump's decision to sideline Venezuela's recognized opposition remain unclear, though the strategic necessity of their involvement appears obvious to most observers. What began as an operation that could have garnered partial international support for toppling a dictatorial regime now risks being perceived as naked power politics, potentially creating blowback that will haunt U.S. interests in Latin America for generations.

• On Monday, January 5, 2026, a trial is set to begin in the Southern District of New York against the captured Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro, who has been brought to the United States. The 25-page indictment is publicly available.