In a wide-ranging 60 Minutes interview with Norah O’Donnell that aired on Nov. 2, U.S. President Donald Trump revealed that the goal of his Venezuela policy is to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power. “Are Maduro’s days as president numbered?” O’Donnell asked, and Trump responded, “I would say so, yeah. I think so, yeah.”
This is an ambitious and inspired goal. If Trump can remove Maduro from power and install an enduring pro-U.S. democracy in Latin America, then this will be a tremendous foreign-policy success for the United States.
In a wide-ranging 60 Minutes interview with Norah O’Donnell that aired on Nov. 2, U.S. President Donald Trump revealed that the goal of his Venezuela policy is to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power. “Are Maduro’s days as president numbered?” O’Donnell asked, and Trump responded, “I would say so, yeah. I think so, yeah.”
This is an ambitious and inspired goal. If Trump can remove Maduro from power and install an enduring pro-U.S. democracy in Latin America, then this will be a tremendous foreign-policy success for the United States.
It would not be the first time that a Republican U.S. president used military force to defenestrate an anti-U.S. dictator in the region. President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of Grenada in 1983 base on fears that the government was building an airport to host Soviet planes. The invasion succeeded, and the island has been a pro-U.S. democracy ever since. Freedom House rated it 89 out of 100 and “free” on its democracy scale.
Similarly, U.S. President George H.W. Bush used military force to overthrow Panamanian dictator and drug trafficker Manuel Noriega in 1989. That was also a strategic success. The operation went according to plan, Noriega was quickly transferred to a Florida prison, and a new government was installed in Panama. Panama has received an 83 out of 100 and “free” rating from Freedom House.
Maduro’s Venezuela presents a familiar set of problems to the United States. His government’s disastrous economic policies have ruined the country and led to a mass outflow of almost 8 million refugees from the country, which contributes to the irregular immigration problem in the region and the United States.
To keep the economy afloat and to feather his own bed and that of his supporters, Maduro and his regime engage in narcotrafficking, which contributes to the drug epidemic in the region and the United States.
Moreover, Venezuela is the axis of aggressors’ westernmost outpost. Maduro works closely with Russia, China, and Iran, undermining U.S. security by giving the United States’ Eurasian enemies a foothold in its near abroad. China props up Maduro financially and received a ground satellite station in return, which China uses to spy on Americans. Russia invests in Venezuela’s energy sector, provides military support, and exports surveillance technology to help Maduro clamp down on political opponents.
Ousting Maduro, therefore, could eliminate these threats and greatly improve U.S. security in the region. This would be a big down payment on a National Defense Strategy that is expected to prioritize security in the Western Hemisphere.
This is also a policy that could unite the various factions within the Trump movement. Reaganite Republicans will approve of removing an anti-American dictator. MAGA Republicans will applaud the effort to address problems of border security and drug trafficking that affect everyday Americans—that is, so long as Trump doesn’t go too far.
This leads to the big, unanswered question about the purpose of the massive military buildup in the Caribbean. At the time of writing, the United States was assembling an impressive show of force in the region, including the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, the largest floating fortress in the U.S. Navy, expected to arrive next week.
How might Trump use force to oust Maduro? There are three real possibilities—and one red herring.
The first is to use military threats and coercive diplomacy to get Maduro—fearing for his life—to voluntarily self-deport. On the Sunday shows last week, U.S. Sens. Rick Scott and Lindsay Graham deployed similar talking points. They said things will get worse for Maduro before they get better, and he would be smart to look for a new home in China or Russia. Lending credence to this theory, when O’Donnell asked Trump, “Are we going to war against Venezuela?” Trump said, “I doubt it. I don’t think so.”
If coercive diplomacy short of force does not work, there is option two. Trump could increase the tempo of military operations against Venezuela’s drug boats and expand the target set to include mainland strikes or special operations raids against oil fields and Venezuela’s military bases and forces. This could choke off key sources of revenue for Maduro and his cronies, make them fear that they can no longer be protected, and increase pressure on him to seek an off ramp.
Option three is the Soleimani option. Washington could conduct a strike directly against Maduro and other regime targets. The United States has a longstanding policy against assassinating world leaders, but Trump is not afraid to break long-standing norms. Maduro is scared and reportedly on the move, sleeping in different homes, but do not count out the United States’ ability to track him down. Israel knew where Iran’s top nuclear scientists were sleeping, and Jerusalem’s technical collection capabilities are certainly outmatched by the world’s greatest superpower.
The movie that is not coming to this theater anytime soon, however, is the red herring: military invasion, occupation and nation building. Trump likes short, sharp, decisive uses of force, like we witnessed against Soleimani and the Iranian nuclear program. He has always been skeptical of long, drawn-out military campaigns, with no clear end in sight, like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.
There is no way the Trump administration is going to conduct a full-scale invasion of Venezuela anytime soon.
Some are puzzled how Trump, the self-declared peacemaker in search of a Nobel Prize, is preparing for military action against Venezuela, but they misunderstand his “Peace through Strength” doctrine. It is peace through strength, not peace through surrender. The use of military power to achieve clear national security objectives is included.
Forcing Maduro from power, however, would only be half the battle. What is the strategy to ensure that power passes to the democratic opposition and not Maduro regime insiders?
Conditions are ripe for a transition. The country already voted for regime change with an estimated 67 percent of the population backing the opposition candidate in last year’s rigged presidential elections.
But many regime elites are profiting from Maduro’s kleptocracy, and the military is co-opted. They are either loyal or afraid or both—and they are being watched over by a Cuban praetorian guard.
After Maduro leaves power, that means the Trump administration will still need to use other instruments of power, including diplomacy and economic leverage. They could message now that Maduro is a goner and his successors will face the same fate unless they are prepared to hold free and fair elections and begin a transition to a new democratic government.
They should also message that a democratic transition will lead to major US investments, including but not limited to Venezuela’s energy sector, and a prosperous future.
Some might worry that regime change in Venezuela will risk leading to civil unrest, but this is unlikely. It takes two sides to have a civil war, and only the military is armed. Perhaps conflict could result with the military turning on itself with some supporting the opposition and others backing the Maduro regime? It is possible, but Venezuela is a cohesive society without sectarian divisions that hasn’t experienced a civil war in 160 years.
There is the greater danger of an armed crackdown; the military and security forces might be willing to kill innocent civilians to keep the Maduro regime in power. To address this problem, the Trump administration could engage in sub-regime deterrence and message that there will be severe consequences for any individuals who engage in such violence against their own people.
Some might also object that ousting Maduro could lead to chaos or a new government that makes the refugee or drug problem worse, but this is unlikely. One quarter of the country’s population has already fled, and Maduro is using the full power of the state to traffic drugs. It is hard to imagine how things could possibly get worse.
This is an uncertain moment, but this may be the most promising moment for Venezuelan people and regional security since Hugo Chavez rise to power in 1999.
A lack of ambition has never been Trump’s weakness. If he can follow in the footsteps of Reagan, and H. W. Bush and establish another enduring pro-American democracy in Latin America, then his will be a tremendous foreign policy victory worthy of praise from future historians.
