The world woke up to momentous developments in Venezuela yesterday. Despite their gravity, however, they were not unexpected.
Indeed, neither US President Donald Trump nor his aides and generals hid their intention to invade Venezuela, overthrow its government, and install an alternative regime that opens the door for the United States to monopolize Venezuela’s wealth of natural resources, chief among them its oil.
Many had assumed that the “suspension” of human rights “idealism,” including democracy, had been tied to the necessities of the Cold War. In an existential, global confrontation, matters such as democracy, respect for diversity, and sovereignty were luxuries that could be set aside.
Moreover, each of the two camps, the Western (capitalist) and the Eastern (socialist) had distinct priorities. The first camp, whether genuinely or not, emphasized freedoms: individual freedoms, freedom of worship, respect for religious practice, and a free economy based on competition without restrictions, constraints, or government interference.
The second camp, also whether genuinely or not, emphasized the liberation of the deprived and of subjugated nations of the “Third World,” across Asia, Africa, and Latin America: respecting for their aspirations for independence and self-determination, as well as for their peoples’ right to benefit from their natural resources.
Accordingly, the first camp, led by the United States and its Western European supporters, put forward its moral “pretexts” reinforced by the military power of three major alliances: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). In response, its rival, the second camp led by the former Soviet Union, had its own moral “pretexts,” and it drew strength from the Warsaw Pact in Europe and from the rise of the People’s Republic of China (communist) in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
As a result, the major powers, in both West and East, were preoccupied with their costly confrontation, which ultimately allowed the “Third World” to gain independence.
On the other hand, it is now clear that Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history,” following the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, was merely a moment in history that has passed.
True, this “collapse” led to the disintegration and fragmentation of several European polities, including the Soviet Union itself. Ethically speaking, it also stripped Washington of its justification for continuing to support military juntas and certain clerical right-wing forces whose excesses it had been covering up. If democracy was the destination that the Western camp wanted to reach, then there was no longer a need to support the military coups or hit squads funded by right-wing factions, including those composed of Latin Americans residing in the United States.
Indeed, once Washington lifted its political and security blockade, liberal and progressive forces rose to power in most Latin American countries.
In Europe, new entities emerged from beneath the rubble of the Soviet bloc. They were built around new notions of their identities and national aspirations. Ukraine is a distinctive and dangerous example of how these identities and aspirations were defined in isolation of Moscow’s reactions, noting that this “Moscow” is now nationalist rather than Soviet. As for the events in Venezuela, there are two views.
The first explains President Trump’s decision to topple Nicolas Maduro as a reaction to his own “personal” political crises within Washington. It is clear that Trump’s opponents have begun to read most of his controversial decisions as attempts to divert attention from his alleged role in what has come to be known as the “Epstein affair.”
The second view is political, and seems to be closer to the truth to many: Trump, and those backing him, are implementing the vision laid out in the administration’s 2025 “National Security Strategy.” This “strategy” is founded on crude and offensive political realism, even if it appears cloaked in defensive, isolationist terms.
Many commentators have argued that Trump is pressing ahead with his version of the “Monroe Doctrine.” He wants to grant Washington a free hand in the Western Hemisphere (both American continents). His team arrived at this conclusion after losing hope in hindering China’s march forward and deciding not to confront Russia in the European strategic “theater.”
We are faced with a “scenario” in which Washington’s exclusive and absolute dominance over the entire hemisphere, from Greenland and Canada in the north to the southern reaches of Argentina and Chile.
Former United States Southern Commander (between 2021 and 2024) Laura Richardson spoke openly of Washington’s intention to prevent its rivals from attaining a foothold in a vast region that is home to Venezuela’s oil (the world’s largest oil reserves), the lithium of Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia (60 percent of global production), the waters of the Amazon in Brazil (31 percent of the world’s drinkable freshwater wealth), and the riches of Canada and Greenland.
Conversely, Washington appears ready to abandon its prioritization of NATO in Europe, betting on electoral victories by the racist, fascist right backed by both Russia and the United States who would replace moderates who favor European unity. That could mean leaving Ukraine, as well as the former Soviet Baltic republics, vulnerable in face of the Russian giant.
Elsewhere, India may be the power tasked with challenging China’s rise in Asia, while proactive Israeli engagement takes care of the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, and the Middle East and large parts of Africa.
These, in brief, are the contours of America’s position in the world in 2026.
