US military intervention in Venezuela is being publicly celebrated by Donald Trump and his closest allies as a decisive victory, but their own words expose a dangerous agenda of domination, threats, and control over an entire country. The rhetoric used to describe this operation reveals a project of force, punishment, and geopolitical expansion that violates international law and the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people.
Trump and top US officials presented the military operation against Venezuela as a “lesson for the world” and a step toward “peace through strength”, but the very discourse used to justify it reveals the scope of the aggression, the cynicism of its narrative, and the geopolitical dimension of an operation conceived to forcibly reorder the map of power in Latin America.
From the name of the operation to the references to the Monroe Doctrine, the abduction of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, and the direct control of oil resources, the US statements reveal a criminal logic of illegal force and economic appropriation that collides head‑on with international law and the principle of the sovereignty of peoples.
A shock operation and the narrative of absolute power
In their narrative, the US military intervention in Venezuela is framed through the name of the operation: “Absolute Determination,” presented as a historic milestone similar to the “Midnight Hammer” operation carried out months earlier in Iran. The administration describes it as a lightning incursion of a magnitude that is unprecedented since World War II and executed with such precision that the Venezuelan army allegedly surrendered without US casualties.
This language turns the US military intervention in Venezuela into a spectacle of power, where the tactical blackout and overwhelming technological superiority are highlighted as proof that the US possesses “the most powerful army on the planet.” The message is clear: Washington claims the right not only to attack but to set a global standard for how to remove governments it considers hostile, thereby normalizing preemptive and overwhelming force.
Legal justification and extraterritorial capture of MaduroAccording to Trump and his allies, the US military intervention in Venezuela is legally justified by accusing Nicolás Maduro of narcoterrorism and of leading the so‑called “Cartel of the Suns.” They insist that there is sufficient evidence to ensure his conviction and that he will be taken to Miami or New York to face US justice.
Behind this narrative, the US military intervention in Venezuela masks an extremely serious precedent: the extraterritorial capture of a head of state in his own country and his transfer to courts of the attacking power. Trump presents himself as a leader who “does not play games: he speaks, acts, and delivers”, turning this abduction into a warning to any government that dares to challenge US national security.
Migrants, security and a regional occupation logic
Supporters of the US military intervention in Venezuela also justify it through domestic security arguments. They allege that the Venezuelan government emptied prisons and psychiatric institutions to send criminals and “thugs” from the Tren de Aragua gang toward US borders. In this discourse, migrants are framed as a direct threat, turning the border into an extension of the battlefield.
The US military intervention in Venezuela is thus presented as an internal security measure: by “sealing the border,” the administration claims to have stopped drug trafficking by speedboats and the export of chaos from Venezuela. This is more than a border policy; it is part of a narrative whereby Washington assumes the right to militarily intervene in another country to reorganize its internal US reality and, supposedly, protect US territory.
Transitional administration and an updated Monroe Doctrine
One of the most revealing aspects of the US military intervention in Venezuela is the open admission that the United States will take temporary control of Venezuela’s government. Trump and his allies state that Washington will manage the country’s economy and reconstruction until a “proper transition” is achieved, explicitly evoking and “surpassing” the principles of the Monroe Doctrine with the slogan “America [sic] for the Americans [sic].”
In practice, the US military intervention in Venezuela is transformed into a trusteeship project where the occupying power decides who governs, how long the intervention lasts, and under what economic and political conditions. Although they say they do not wish to keep permanent troops on the ground, they stress that they will not hesitate to deploy forces whenever they deem it necessary to “protect the people” and “guarantee regional stability,” leaving the duration of the intervention entirely in US hands.
Oil, reconstruction, and control of strategic resources
The US military intervention in Venezuela is also clearly linked to control over the country’s vast energy resources. The administration describes Venezuela’s oil infrastructure as “failed and ruined” due to years of “abandonment and corruption” and promises that US oil companies —“the best in the world,” according to the US— will invest to recover resources that were “stolen.”
In this framework, the US military intervention in Venezuela is presented as a plan to “clean up the economy,” “recover debts owed to our nation,” and create wealth “for the Venezuelan people and the American [sic] people.” This makes the reconstruction sound less like humanitarian support and more like a geopolitical business project in which Washington decides how to exploit strategic resources and which local actors are acceptable partners.
Strategic message to China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba
The discourse surrounding the US military intervention in Venezuela also sends a message to other global powers. Officials warn that from now on, any country that wants Venezuelan oil will have to negotiate directly with the United States. This places the intervention in a broader context of confrontation with China, Russia, and Iran, which have invested heavily and maintained political alliances with Caracas.
At the same time, the US is issuing a direct warning to Cuba, suggesting that its system is in decline and that it should “watch its back.” The US military intervention in Venezuela thus becomes a regional and global signal: an example of how Washington is willing to impose a new order in the Western Hemisphere, using overwhelming force, territorial control, and management of resources as tools of pressure and realignment.
US Launches Military Strikes Against Venezuela; President Maduro and Cilia Flores Kidnapped
“Peace through strength” and the paradox of imposed peace
Trump concluded by framing the US military intervention in Venezuela as part of a doctrine of “peace through strength,” citing his intention to end the “bloodbath” in Ukraine as another example of his capacity to close conflicts. However, the underlying message is that peace is achieved not through negotiation and international law but through decisive and forceful actions such as the early-morning operation that toppled the Venezuelan government.
Within this doctrine, the US military intervention in Venezuela is portrayed as a necessary shock to prevent future wars, when in reality, it sets a dangerous precedent of unilateral action, regime change, and control over a country’s natural resources. The rhetoric of strength is used to justify a project that many international actors see as a threat to global stability and to the basic principle of sovereignty.
From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.