US' ‘next step could be to hit targets inside Venezuela’ to prompt overthrow of Maduro | DW News

Key Concepts

• Regime Change: The process of replacing a government with another, often through external intervention.
• Military Buildup: The strategic deployment of military forces and assets in a specific region.
• Covert Intelligence Operations: Secret activities conducted by intelligence agencies to gather information or influence events in a foreign country.
• Air Strikes: Military attacks carried out by aircraft.
• Sovereignty: The supreme authority within a territory.
• Sectarian Violence: Conflict between different religious or ethnic groups.
• Security Vacuum: A situation where a governing authority collapses, leading to a lack of order and potential for conflict.
• Geopolitical Influence: The influence exerted by a state on international affairs through its geographic position and power.

Trump's Widening Threats and Military Buildup in Latin America

Donald Trump has expanded his threats to Latin American countries, warning that any nation involved in the drug trade could face military action. This comes as the United States maintains a significant military presence in the Caribbean and intensifies its warnings to Venezuela.

Military Presence and Preparations

• Military Assets: Fighter jets, transport planes, and support helicopters are part of a military buildup at a US base in Puerto Rico, placing them within striking distance of Venezuela.
• Troop Deployment: Approximately 15,000 US soldiers are stationed in the region.
• Naval Presence: At least 11 US naval vessels are in the area, including the USS Gerald R. Ford, the US's largest aircraft carrier, capable of carrying dozens of aircraft.
• Host Nation Support: Even Trinidad and Tobago has agreed to host a US military radar installation.
• Intelligence and Air Strikes: Trump has authorized covert intelligence operations in Venezuela and has threatened air strikes against alleged drug cartels.

Trump's Direct Communication and Social Media Warnings

Sources indicate that Trump directly communicated with Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro, during a phone call, urging him to leave the country. On social media, Trump declared that the airspace above and surrounding Venezuela would be entirely closed.

Maduro's Defiance and Venezuelan Context

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has remained defiant, stating, "We want peace, but peace with sovereignty, peace with equality, peace with freedom. We do not want a slaves peace or the peace of colonies." Maduro has been in power for 12 years, and the legitimacy of the last two elections that kept him in office is not recognized by the US and many other countries.

Public Opinion and Historical Parallels

Opinions in Caracas are divided. While some express opposition to violence and invasion, they believe both sides should negotiate a solution for the Venezuelan population seeking change. Others express concern about becoming a "protectorate of the United States," citing historical US invasions.

Expert Perspectives on Intervention

The video features two guests with differing views on US action in Venezuela:

• Ellen Nickmire (Journalist): Argues that the same overconfidence that led to the Iraq War now risks pushing Washington towards another disastrous intervention. She emphasizes that even a quick military victory in deposing a leader does not resolve the long-term problems left behind.
• Elliot Abrams (Former US Special Representative for Venezuela): Advocates for outright regime change against Nicolás Maduro. He believes Maduro lost a landslide election and should be forced to leave power, as his continued presence destabilizes the region and fuels drug trafficking.

Arguments for and Against Intervention

Elliot Abrams' Case for Intervention

• Illegitimate Rule: Abrams argues that Maduro lost a free and fair election and is illegally clinging to power.
• Regional Instability: Maduro's continued rule is a source of instability, leading to the displacement of millions of Venezuelans and destabilizing neighboring countries.
• Drug Trafficking: Venezuela is a hub for Colombian cocaine trafficking, with the complicity of regime and military officials.
• National Security Risk: Abrams believes that not intervening poses a greater national security risk to the US due to growing Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and Cuban influence in Venezuela.

Ellen Nickmire's Counterarguments and Historical Caution

• Unforeseen Consequences: Nickmire highlights the historical tendency for US interventions to lead to unforeseen consequences, citing the sectarian violence and empowered extremist groups that emerged after the Iraq invasion.
• Limited Efficacy of Air Strikes: Research indicates that air strikes alone are rarely sufficient to overthrow a leader.
• Increased Violence and Seldom Democracy: Military overthrows of foreign leaders by foreign powers often result in more violence and rarely lead to increased democracy.
• Security Vacuum and Power Struggles: Overthrowing a leader creates a security vacuum and a power struggle that can exacerbate existing societal divisions.
• Persistent Foreign Interference: Even if Maduro is removed, foreign powers like Russia and China are likely to continue their interference.

Methodology and Potential Outcomes

Abrams' Proposed Approach

Abrams clarifies that he is not advocating for a US invasion. He suggests that diplomatic and economic pressure, which were attempted in the first Trump term without success, are insufficient. He believes the current military pressure, described as a "psychological operation," might be a precursor to hitting targets inside Venezuela. The hope is that this pressure will cause the regime to crack or the military to rise up against Maduro.

Nickmire's Historical Analysis of Intervention

Nickmire draws on her reporting from Iraq and academic research on US regime change efforts. She points out that:

• Iraq Example: The quick overthrow of Saddam Hussein was followed by years of US troops dealing with sectarian killings and the rise of groups like the Islamic State and empowered Iran.
• Academic Findings: Studies by academics like Alex DS and Lindsey Oor found no instances where air strikes alone led to regime overthrow. Their general findings suggest that military overthrows often lead to more violence and seldom to more democracy.

Addressing Sectarian Violence Concerns

Abrams argues that Venezuela is different from Libya or Iraq because it lacks the deep sectarian divisions (Druze, Shia, Sunni, Kurds) that fueled violence in those countries. He points to the successful democratization of South America since the 1980s as evidence of the region's potential for stability.

The Risk of Escalation

Both experts acknowledge the uncertainty of the situation. Abrams admits he doesn't know what the US would do if its current pressure tactics fail after several weeks and questions whether they would escalate. Nickmire emphasizes the potential for unforeseen consequences and the possibility of increased foreign interference.

Geopolitical Considerations

Abrams believes that a democratically elected Venezuelan president could ask Iran and Russia to cease their support, aligning Venezuela with other democratic South American nations. Nickmire counters that foreign powers are unlikely to cease interference and may even increase it in response to US actions.

Conclusion

The discussion highlights the complex and high-stakes nature of potential US intervention in Venezuela. While Elliot Abrams advocates for regime change to address regional instability and security threats, Ellen Nickmire urges caution, drawing on historical precedents of unforeseen consequences and the limited success of military interventions in fostering democracy. The debate centers on the legitimacy, efficacy, and potential repercussions of US actions, with significant geopolitical implications at play.