Trump’s Monroe Doctrine: Is Venezuela the New Battleground?
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, President Trump’s administration is intensifying its stance on Venezuela, raising concerns about a potential shift from economic pressure to military action.
Trump, who imposed severe sanctions on Venezuela during his first term, has returned with a different approach. The revival of the Monroe Doctrine in U.S. national security documents signals a clear emphasis on Washington’s dominance over the Western Hemisphere and prioritizes military tools over diplomacy, indicating a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America. The failure of the Biden administration’s efforts to manage the Venezuelan crisis through negotiation has allowed Trump to pursue a policy of maximum pressure under the justification of “strategic decisiveness.”
The key difference between the current U.S. approach and previous policies is that economic pressure is no longer the primary tool. The seizure of the “Skipper” oil tanker on December 10 was not merely the implementation of a sanction but a practical demonstration of U.S. military power in one of the region’s most sensitive waterways. This action sent a clear message to Caracas that Washington is prepared to use tools beyond economics to exert its will.
The U.S. Treasury Department recently imposed sanctions on close relatives of Maduro and several shipping companies operating in Venezuela’s oil sector. U.S. officials have stated that these actions are part of efforts to disrupt the Venezuelan government’s financial networks. However, critics argue that such policies are rooted in political and strategic pressure rather than legal considerations or a genuine fight against smuggling.
Washington’s official justification regarding the fight against drug trafficking has also faced skepticism. Some regional leaders, including the President of Colombia, have emphasized that the share of Caribbean routes in the global drug trade is limited. They contend that linking this issue to extensive military actions is more politically driven than based on factual data.
The deployment of the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, along with submarines, F-35 fighter jets, and several other warships, has further highlighted the military aspect of this shift. Some U.S. military analysts have emphasized that such an arrangement lacks strategic justification without a specific operational goal, indicating that the option of using military force is being seriously considered.
The revival of the Monroe Doctrine in the Trump administration’s foreign policy is not merely a historical or symbolic reference but signifies a redefinition of Latin America’s place in Washington’s geopolitical calculations. This doctrine, which defined Latin America as the exclusive sphere of influence of the United States in the 19th century, is now being reproduced in a more security-oriented format, where the presence or influence of non-Western powers in the Western Hemisphere is considered a direct threat to U.S. interests.
In this framework, Venezuela has become a prominent example. Unlike previous periods where the main focus of Washington was on containing leftist governments or exerting economic pressure, the current approach is aimed at sending a strategic message to the entire region: the United States intends to rewrite the rules of the game in its traditional backyard and is not afraid to use hard tools to enforce this will.
This message is not only directed at Caracas; countries like Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, which have tried to pursue more independent foreign policies in recent years, are closely following these developments. The main concern in the region is that the revival of the Monroe Doctrine may signify a decrease in Washington’s tolerance for non-aligned policies and a return to an interventionist model in Latin America, a model with a long and costly history in the region.
At the supra-regional level, this policy sends a clear message to Russia and China. Both countries have expanded their political, economic, and military presence in Latin America in recent years, with Venezuela becoming one of their focal points. Moscow’s military support and Beijing’s economic and diplomatic backing of Caracas are seen by Washington not only as a threat to regional stability but also as a direct challenge to U.S. geopolitical dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
From this perspective, recent U.S. actions can be seen as an attempt to achieve three simultaneous goals: weakening the Maduro government, limiting the influence of Russia and China, and returning Latin America to the traditional orbit of Washington’s foreign policy. In this equation, Venezuela is more of a testing ground for this grand strategy than a final target, and its success or failure will have consequences beyond its borders.
One of the key questions in the current crisis is the distinction between a real military threat and psychological warfare. The deployment of U.S. forces, naval movements, and harsh statements from Washington officials all indicate a readiness to escalate pressure. However, the question remains whether these actions are a prelude to a real conflict or part of a deterrence and intimidation strategy.
Media reports indicate that multiple options, from limited air strikes to broader scenarios, have been discussed in White House security meetings. However, closer examination reveals that the operational and political obstacles to a full-scale conflict are significant. America’s experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, public sensitivity to costly wars, and the lack of internal political consensus all play a deterrent role.
From a military perspective, any ground operation in Venezuela would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops and readiness to enter an asymmetric war in urban and jungle environments. Military experts have repeatedly warned that air and sea superiority does not guarantee a quick victory, and maintaining occupied territories could lead the United States into a protracted conflict, a scenario that would entail high human, financial, and political costs.
In contrast, the option of limited air strikes is seen as a less risky scenario. This option could exert significant psychological and political pressure by targeting military infrastructure, sensitive facilities, or symbols of the Maduro government without involving Washington in a ground war. However, even such an action could trigger widespread regional and international reactions and spin the crisis out of control.
On the other side, the Venezuelan government, by emphasizing a strategy of long-term resistance and asymmetric warfare, is trying to show Washington the costs of any military intervention. Although Caracas’s military capabilities are limited against the United States, historical experiences have shown that even weaker actors can prolong and make conflict costly by relying on guerrilla warfare, paramilitary networks, and leveraging complex geography.
Overall, the U.S. military threat cannot be dismissed as mere political bluff, but evidence does not suggest an immediate desire for a full-scale war. The most likely path is a continuation of combined pressure, including sanctions, a display of military power, and psychological warfare—a strategy aimed at forcing Maduro to make political concessions without paying the heavy costs of a direct conflict.
