Why is the US taking action against Venezuela now?

Authors: Li Nan, Chen Kaiyu

Why hasn't the United States taken any aggressive military action against South America in the last thirty years? Why is the United States now adopting a global retrenchment strategy? Can the United States control South America?

At the beginning of 2026, the United States escalated its military action against Venezuela, directly invading and capturing Venezuelan President Maduro, causing a global uproar, with countries around the world condemning the US military invasion. This involves three questions.

I. Why is the international community so shocked?

The reason is actually very simple: the United States has not taken any direct military action against the countries of its "backyard," the Americas, for thirty years.

The United States' Monroe Doctrine treats the Caribbean countries, including Central America, as its "backyard." To plunder South America's resources, it has consistently interfered in the politics and economics of these countries and is prepared to take military action at any time under various pretexts. However, the public opinion base in South American countries is anti-American, and there is always the possibility of an extreme anti-American regime winning an election. Therefore, when US political intervention proves ineffective, direct military invasion of a small South American country is not surprising. Since 1960, the United States has intervened in South American countries, including Cuba, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Grenada, Haiti, and Panama, by funding anti-government armed groups, orchestrating armed coups, or directly invading them militarily. Key events include: In 1961, militants funded (trained) by the CIA landed at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, attempting to overthrow the anti-American Castro government, but the Bay of Pigs operation failed; In 1964, the CIA funded a pro-American organization in Brazil to stage a military coup, overthrowing President Goulart, who advocated for economic nationalization, and installing a pro-American dictatorship. In September 1963, the United States supported a military coup in the Dominican Republic, overthrowing President Juan Bosch, who had only been elected for seven months and insisted on nationalization reforms. In 1965, the US sent naval forces and paratroopers to the Dominican Republic to suppress the uprising supporting Juan Bosch. In 1973, a US-backed military coup overthrew President Salvador Allende, who planned to nationalize Chilean copper mines owned by US interests. Following the coup, the US-backed Pinochet military government came to power and implemented a 17-year-long regime. The military rule of Nicaragua lasted for 10 years; in 1979, the dictatorial Somoza government was overthrown. The United States, fearing an alliance between the new Nicaraguan government and Cuba and the Soviet Union, and that it would support the Nicaraguan anti-government forces, led to the ten-year Nicaraguan Civil War; in 1980, the United States sent military advisors to El Salvador to suppress the left-wing National Liberation Front, resulting in a twelve-year civil war, the most notable event being the "Mosote massacre"; in 1983, the United States, citing "protection of its citizens" and "at the request of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States," intervened. Under the pretext of "anti-drug operations," the United States invaded Grenada, overthrowing the pro-Soviet government and installing a pro-American regime in power. In 1989, the US invaded Panama under the pretext of "anti-drug operations," arresting Panamanian President Noriega, who was attempting to nationalize the Panama Canal, and permanently seizing control of the canal. In 1994, the US militarily invaded Haiti under the pretext of "restoring democracy," overthrowing the then-government, forcing its leaders into exile, and installing a pro-American government in power. These historical events demonstrate that during the Cold War, it was commonplace for the US to find pretexts to militarily invade South American countries. However, in the more than thirty years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has not launched military action in its backyard. As countries around the world develop their economies in a relatively stable and peaceful environment, they seem to have gradually forgotten America's "bullying" behavior, which explains the shock at the US arrest of Maduro.

II. Why hasn't the United States militarily invaded South American countries in the past thirty years?

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, and the world order entered a phase of US dominance. Cuba would no longer install Soviet intermediate-range missiles, Grenada would no longer provide airfields for Cuban and Soviet aircraft, and anti-American forces in South American countries no longer had Soviet support, greatly reducing the direct threat to the United States. However, the general sentiment in the Americas remains anti-American, and many countries are still hostile to the United States.

For example, Cuba, with its unique geographical location, is a natural strategic hub in the Caribbean Sea and a "barrier on the fence" of America's backyard. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba's strength was greatly reduced, and its military threat to the United States weakened, but its anti-American intentions remained undiminished, and it remained the anti-American flag in South America. The United States has adopted a variety of blockades and sanctions against Cuba, but has not taken direct military action. For example, Venezuela, with 17% of the world's oil reserves, is the country with the largest oil reserves in the world and has significant strategic value to the United States. After Hugo Chávez won the presidential election in 1998, he began a more than ten-year term. Chávez was unequivocally anti-American and implemented a resource nationalization movement after taking office, nationalizing Venezuela's oil resources and seriously damaging the interests of American capital. The United States viewed Chavez as a thorn in its side, labeling him a "terrorist." During Chavez's tenure, the US employed various subversive tactics and economic sanctions, but refrained from military action. For example, Bolivia possesses 21% of the world's lithium reserves, making it the country with the largest lithium reserves globally, holding significant strategic value for the US's new energy industry. However, Bolivia and the US have a long history of conflict. In 2008, the Bolivian government implemented a resource nationalization policy, nationalizing US-dominated oil and gas, leading to a severing of diplomatic relations. The US has also consistently used various means to sanction and subvert the Bolivian left-wing government, but without resorting to direct military action. Mexico and Colombia, among others, also have long-standing strained relations with the US, yet the US has not taken direct military action against them either. Conversely, over the past thirty years, the United States has engaged in numerous overseas military operations outside of South America, launching 23 intervention wars and 14 color revolutions, including the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, the 2003 Second Gulf War, the 2011 Syrian War, and the "Arab Spring" color revolutions. Therefore, the fact that the United States has not taken aggressive military action against its backyard for the past thirty years is not because it has embarked on a path of peace, but because the United States has historically devoted sufficient effort to its backyard without achieving the desired results in the South American quagmire, thus shifting its focus to more strategically valuable regions such as Europe and the Middle East. Now, the United States is again encroaching on its backyard, taking direct military action against Venezuela, because it has been forced to adopt a global retrenchment strategy. III. Why is the United States now adopting a global retrenchment strategy? The US National Security Strategy released in December 2025 explicitly lists the Americas as a "core interest area" and proposes the concept of "Monroe Doctrine 2.0," which means concentrating resources to control the Americas by shrinking operations in the Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East. In other words, the United States no longer wants to be the world's policeman but wants to build a fortress in the Americas. The main reasons are as follows: First, maintaining global hegemony is too costly, and the United States cannot bear the burden. U.S. military spending has reached a historic high, and much of this spending does not align with the "America First" principle. Therefore, the U.S. is attempting to pressure Europe, Japan, and South Korea to increase defense spending in order to help reduce the costs of its military presence in Europe, the Middle East, and these regions. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy, due to long-term industrial hollowing out, is trapped in a vicious cycle of stagflation, with record-breaking fiscal deficits and a significant fiscal and financial crisis looming. The U.S. attempt to escape this stagflation cycle through tariffs in 2025 also ended in failure. Driven by self-interest, the U.S. needs to reap global benefits; driven by power, it is unable to engage in a protracted struggle with China and can only retreat globally, revitalizing its neglected backyard of thirty years. Secondly, rebuilding the global supply chain requires the Americas. The United States urgently needs to revitalize its manufacturing sector and rebuild a global supply chain that excludes China. However, countries with close political ties to the US, such as Europe, Japan, and South Korea, lack resource advantages and cannot provide the necessary resources for US manufacturing. Therefore, South America has become crucial for the US to rebuild its supply chain. There's a saying: "God gave all the good resources to the Americas." South America possesses vast land, the world's largest rainforest, abundant water resources, and rich energy and mineral resources. Bolivia has the world's largest lithium reserves, Venezuela the world's largest oil reserves, Chile the world's second largest copper reserves, Peru the world's largest bismuth and antimony reserves and fourth largest copper reserves, and Brazil the world's largest niobium reserves, second largest iron ore reserves, and second largest rare earth reserves. However, due to various reasons, the exploitation of these energy and mineral resources has been limited to a certain extent. South American countries generally have low levels of economic development, large wealth gaps, and abundant cheap labor. At the same time, many South American governments suffer from severe corruption and lax governance, making it easy for the United States to find fault if it wants to support a particular party to overthrow the ruling party in elections. The military strength of South American countries is weak, lacking independent military-industrial capabilities, and there is a significant technological gap between them and the US military, making them vulnerable to the US military. This is an area that the United States seems to be able to control. Under the grand strategy of global contraction, rebuilding American manufacturing, and reshaping the global supply chain, South America's abundant resource reserves, low-level extraction, abundant cheap labor, and weak defense capabilities make it a key region for the United States in rebuilding its manufacturing supply chain. Therefore, the United States has begun to pay renewed attention to South America and has brought it under its control. IV. Can the United States Control South America? The saying "God gave the best resources to the Americas" has a second part—"except for the people." This illustrates the complex regional and social contradictions in South America. South America possesses complex contradictions and anti-American sentiments no less intense than those of the Middle East powder keg. The abundant natural resources of South American countries have long served as a major raw material base for American manufacturing, but American capital needs complete control over these resources to maximize their value. However, during periods of pro-American government rule, while the economy develops, the predatory exploitation of vast resources by American conglomerates and the flow of wealth to the United States gradually lead to social polarization and a surge in anti-American sentiment. This can easily lead to the emergence of guerrilla groups, requiring pro-American governments to rely on American military force for suppression, further intensifying anti-American sentiment. Conversely, when populist governments are in power, they cater to voters' wishes by raising the anti-American banner and promoting resource nationalization, using mineral profits to improve social welfare. While this may garner public support, it harms the interests of American capital. Consequently, the United States imposes various political and economic sanctions, disrupting normal economic operations, and even resorting to US-backed coups and military intervention, further fueling anti-American sentiment. Therefore, many South American governments oscillate between populist and pro-US governments, putting the United States in a difficult position: pro-US governments, which the US fully supports, lack popular support and are unstable, making them vulnerable to overthrow if US support weakens; populist governments, on the other hand, are outwardly anti-American, and these movements are recurring, creating a vicious cycle. This is also why the US has been unable to truly control its South American backyard for over a century. For example, even if the US were to launch a large-scale military invasion and completely control Venezuela, it would still struggle to stabilize the situation and secure oil resources. Although Venezuela has large oil reserves, its extraction rate is very low, and significant additional investment is needed to develop production capacity. This presents a difficult choice for American capital: on the one hand, if a pro-American regime comes to power, the political situation will be unstable, making it difficult to guarantee the investment environment for American capital; on the other hand, if armed forces emerge to oppose the pro-American government, the US military will have to fight fires in the jungle. Based on the analysis above, we have the following outlook on the future situation in South America: 1. The US's strategic intention to rebuild its American stronghold will continue. This is not only a natural choice after the decline of US power and global contraction, but also a strategic choice for the US's resurgence. 2. Venezuela is just the beginning. The United States will continue to launch numerous offensives against South American countries in the political, economic, and military spheres, and will continue to take various measures to control South America, with the possibility of small-scale military conflicts not ruled out. 3. It will be very difficult for the United States to completely control South America. This is because the expectation of American capital is plunder, not equal cooperation and win-win. Although South American countries are easily defeated by the United States, they are difficult to subdue. If the United States is determined to conduct long-term military interference, it is easy to get bogged down; if it does not maintain a long-term military presence, it will be difficult to control. In short, under the US strategy of global retrenchment and return to the Americas, the world will become more turbulent.