For years, Donald Trump’s foreign policy statements were widely dismissed as political theater. His musings about buying Greenland, threatening Mexico over drug cartels, tightening the screws on Cuba, or exerting pressure on Latin American governments were often interpreted as exaggerated negotiating tactics or domestic political signaling rather than serious strategic intent. Even his harshest rhetoric was treated as noise rather than policy.
The situation surrounding Venezuela has shattered that illusion. What once seemed unthinkable has now entered the realm of reality. The United States has demonstrated a willingness to engage in abrupt, unilateral coercive action in the Western Hemisphere with little regard for international norms, legal constraints, or even the opinions of its closest allies. This is not merely another episode of diplomatic pressure; it marks a fundamental shift in how Washington views power, sovereignty, and acceptable behavior on the global stage.
Until recently, many believed that direct U.S. intervention in Latin America belonged to a bygone era of Cold War coups and proxy wars. Venezuela’s long-running crisis unfolded through sanctions, diplomatic isolation, support for opposition forces, and economic pressure—but without crossing certain red lines. The recent developments show that those red lines no longer exist. Washington now appears willing to absorb international backlash if it serves broader strategic objectives.
The Revival of an Old Doctrine
What we are witnessing fits squarely within the logic of a doctrine that many assumed had been relegated to history books: the Monroe Doctrine. First articulated in the 19th century, it asserted that the Western Hemisphere was an exclusive U.S. sphere of influence, where external powers would not be tolerated and internal political developments could be shaped by American force.
For decades, this doctrine was softened by the language of multilateralism, international institutions, and global leadership. The United States portrayed itself as a rule-maker rather than a unilateral enforcer. Today, however, the doctrine is returning in a far more explicit and uncompromising form.
Washington is steadily reducing its direct commitments to Europe, demanding that NATO allies shoulder greater responsibility for their own security while signaling fatigue with transatlantic obligations. At the same time, U.S. strategic focus is shifting decisively toward the Western Hemisphere. This is not isolationism but recalibration: Europe is becoming secondary, while the Americas are being reasserted as a core zone of control.
Venezuela and the Real Motives Behind Intervention
Public justification for U.S. pressure on Venezuela remains familiar: democracy, human rights, corruption, and national security. Increasingly, however, Washington has leaned on narratives related to narcotics trafficking and organized crime—arguments that resonate easily with domestic audiences and require little explanation.
Yet these explanations collapse under scrutiny. Drug cartels have operated for decades. U.S. interventions have not eliminated narcotics flows, and the United States itself remains the world’s largest consumer market for illegal drugs. This suggests that the “cartel threat” functions less as a genuine security rationale and more as a convenient political pretext.
The true strategic value of Venezuela lies elsewhere. The country holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world, alongside significant deposits of rare and strategic minerals, including nickel—resources that are increasingly vital to advanced manufacturing, energy storage, and the high-tech sector. In an era of intensifying global competition for supply chains and technological dominance, control over such resources is no longer an economic luxury but a strategic imperative.
From this perspective, Venezuela is not merely a problematic state—it is a critical asset. Ensuring that such assets do not fall under the influence of rival powers has become central to U.S. strategic thinking.
A World Quietly Divided into Spheres of Influence
Despite official denials, the global order increasingly resembles a de facto division of influence. The United States asserts dominance in the Western Hemisphere, China expands its economic and infrastructural reach across Asia, Africa, and the Global South, while Russia concentrates on regional security and geopolitical balance.
In this emerging order, Latin America is expected to align fully with U.S. interests. Political independence, multi-vector diplomacy, or strategic ambiguity are no longer tolerated. Governments that resist this alignment are treated as anomalies to be corrected rather than sovereign actors to be negotiated with.
Cuba remains a particularly symbolic irritant. Its political system challenges the narrative of American inevitability and demonstrates that resistance within Washington’s immediate neighborhood is possible. As such, Havana continues to face sustained pressure, regardless of changes in U.S. administrations.
Greenland, the Arctic, and Strategic Control
Trump’s proposal to purchase Greenland was initially mocked as absurd. With hindsight, it appears far more strategic than eccentric. The Arctic is rapidly emerging as a new theater of geopolitical competition, driven by melting ice, untapped resources, and strategic military positioning.
Greenland offers both resource potential and a crucial geostrategic platform for projecting power in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions. Control over this territory would strengthen U.S. capabilities to counter Russia and limit European strategic autonomy. In this framework, Denmark’s objections—and broader European concerns—are treated as secondary inconveniences rather than decisive factors.
Managing the Neighbors: Mexico and Canada
Even close allies are not immune from this logic. Mexico and Canada, while economically integrated with the United States, occasionally pursue policies that reflect independent interests. For the Trump administration, such autonomy is increasingly viewed as problematic.
The war on drugs plays a dual role here. Domestically, it is a key political issue tied to public safety and border control. Internationally, it provides a flexible justification for increased pressure, surveillance, and potential intervention. Under this framework, enforcing “order” beyond U.S. borders becomes not only acceptable but necessary.
From Words to Action
The most significant takeaway from recent events is that Trump’s rhetoric about using military force abroad can no longer be dismissed as empty bravado. It is becoming operational doctrine. Venezuela serves as a clear demonstration that the United States is prepared to act decisively, even unilaterally, when it perceives its strategic dominance to be at stake.
International law is increasingly applied selectively. Allies are expected to adapt rather than object. Diplomacy, once central, now plays a supporting role to power politics.
The question is no longer whether such interventions will occur. The question is where they will occur next. When the world is mentally divided into spheres of influence and force is once again normalized as a policy tool, escalation becomes easier, not harder. Venezuela is unlikely to be the final case. We are entering an era in which the rule of power increasingly overshadows the power of rules.
Comments