Venezuela Operation Is Latest in Long History of U.S. Intervention in Latin America

The recent U.S. military operation in Venezuela has sent shockwaves across Latin America and beyond. Described by Washington as a necessary action against corruption, narcotics trafficking, and authoritarian rule, the operation resulted in the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and marked the most direct American military intervention in the region in decades.

While the Biden-era focus on diplomacy once suggested restraint, the latest operation underscores a familiar reality: U.S. intervention in Latin America is not new. Instead, Venezuela represents the latest chapter in a long and often controversial history of American involvement in the political affairs of its southern neighbors.

A Century of Influence and Intervention

U.S. engagement in Latin America dates back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which warned European powers against interference in the Western Hemisphere. While originally framed as a protective measure, the doctrine eventually evolved into a justification for U.S. dominance in the region.

Throughout the 20th century, Washington repeatedly intervened—politically, economically, and militarily—claiming to defend stability, democracy, or national security. In practice, these actions often prioritized U.S. strategic and economic interests over local sovereignty.

From Central America to the Caribbean, the United States became a powerful external force shaping governments, economies, and conflicts across Latin America.

Cold War Flashpoints

The Cold War era intensified American involvement as fears of communism drove aggressive policies across the region.

In Guatemala (1954), the CIA helped overthrow President Jacobo Árbenz after his land reforms threatened U.S. corporate interests.

In Cuba (1961), the failed Bay of Pigs invasion aimed to topple Fidel Castro’s revolutionary government.

In the Dominican Republic (1965), U.S. troops intervened amid political instability, citing the risk of communist influence.

These actions were often presented as defensive measures, but they left lasting scars—destabilizing nations and fueling distrust toward Washington.

Proxy Wars and Covert Power

During the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. intervention took subtler forms. Intelligence agencies supported right-wing regimes and proxy forces under the banner of anti-communism.

Examples include:

Operation Condor, a coordinated crackdown on leftist movements across South America

Support for the Contras in Nicaragua against the Sandinista government

The 1989 invasion of Panama, which removed General Manuel Noriega and demonstrated Washington’s willingness to use force in the post-Cold War era

These interventions often weakened democratic institutions while entrenching cycles of violence and instability.

The Post-Cold War Shift

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. justifications for intervention evolved. Instead of communism, Washington focused on:

Drug trafficking

Terrorism

Human rights violations

Military cooperation, sanctions, and political pressure became preferred tools, particularly in fragile states such as Haiti and Honduras.

Venezuela increasingly fell into Washington’s crosshairs as relations deteriorated under Hugo Chávez and later Nicolás Maduro.

Why Venezuela Became a Target

Venezuela’s political and economic crisis has unfolded over more than a decade. Hyperinflation, mass migration, allegations of election fraud, and corruption weakened state institutions and isolated the country internationally.

U.S. officials accused the Maduro government of operating as a narco-state, enabling criminal networks and threatening regional security. Sanctions intensified, diplomatic channels collapsed, and military pressure steadily increased.

By 2025, American naval deployments in the Caribbean and rising rhetoric made it clear that Venezuela was becoming a central focus of U.S. strategy in the hemisphere.

The 2026 Operation: A Turning Point

The 2026 Venezuela operation marked the first direct U.S. military intervention in Latin America since Panama. Airstrikes targeted strategic military sites, followed by special forces operations that resulted in Maduro’s capture.

Washington framed the mission as a necessary step to restore democracy and dismantle criminal networks. U.S. leaders suggested temporary American oversight could stabilize the country and protect its people.

However, many Latin American governments strongly disagreed.

Regional and Global Backlash

Across the region, leaders condemned the operation as a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law. Critics warned that unilateral military action risks destabilizing Latin America and reviving memories of past interventions that caused long-term harm.

For many, the Venezuela operation reinforced fears that powerful nations still feel entitled to decide the fate of smaller states.

A Familiar Debate, Reignited

Supporters argue the U.S. acted where diplomacy failed, confronting authoritarianism and criminal power structures. Critics counter that intervention rarely delivers lasting stability and often deepens resentment.

From Guatemala to Cuba, Nicaragua to Panama, and now Venezuela, the pattern remains contested.

As Venezuela’s future unfolds, one truth is clear: the shadow of U.S. intervention continues to shape Latin America’s political landscape, raising enduring questions about power, sovereignty, and the cost of foreign involvement.