970x125
The arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has become a flashpoint for war hawks justifying an American takeover of Caracas, downplaying the real humanitarian and domestic risks of conflict with a neighboring country. Yet US President Donald Trump’s administration comments about what comes next remain vague, lacking a clear endgame. This gap strengthens the argument for de-escalation and immediate use of any remaining diplomatic channels before the crisis spirals beyond our control.
Six years ago, the US government war games stimulated scenarios following the fall of Maduro, predicting societal and infrastructural collapse. Now, the world is watching a version of that scenario unfold in real time. Trump’s pledge of “no new wars” is being tested by the dramatic US military operation on January 3, 2026, in Caracas, resulting in the capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Administration officials have since teased the possibility of further military action if Venezuela fails to cooperate with US demands, including oil resources and political transition.
Proximity changes everything
Since the infamous kidnapping of Maduro, the US government has mobilized its communications efforts to counter domestic and international backlash. Trump’s initial strike on drug trafficking boats in the eastern Pacific escalated into an oil blockade and now direct military involvement.
Mainstream outlets like The Hill and Foreign Policy have drawn direct comparisons to the unpopular excuse used for former US President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. Whether or not Trump recognizes these comparisons, Venezuela’s proximity to the US fundamentally alters risks. Unlike distant Middle East conflicts Americans experienced during the War on Terror, war here could spill closer to home and increase the risks of conventional war on our continent. Such a conflict would directly threaten US national security and regional stability and spell out long-term hemispheric chaos.
It would likely trigger mass displacement and intensify refugee flows towards the border, straining border infrastructure, law enforcement and local humanitarian systems. Yuma, Arizona, serves as a cautionary example: During the 2021–2022 migrant surge, border patrol agents, local hospitals and food banks were overwhelmed. A larger influx of migrants also leaves room for transnational crime, trafficking and cartel expansion. US war games predicted guerrilla-style attacks on oil refineries and prolonged conflict, similar to the sectarian violence that followed Bashar al-Assad’s fall in Syria.
Within Venezuela, this could shatter remaining institutions and destabilize surrounding countries like Colombia and Brazil, which are geographically even closer to the US. It also opens a space for American adversaries to play the “hero” and establish a stronghold in the hemisphere.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has already sent weapons as a sign of support, in the same way he did with Assad in Syria, which secured permanent military bases. China, as Venezuela’s largest buyer of crude oil, has extended support to the Maduro-aligned leadership amid the blockade.
Regime change efforts offer stark warnings from recent history. In Syria, the optimism that once surrounded the fall of Assad in late 2024 is being questioned with the explosion of sectarian conflict and reports of vengeance killings of minorities — the Druze, Christians and Alawites — often downplayed by the transitional government under Ahmed al-Sharaa. Western leaders are choosing to avoid embarrassment from backing a “former” terrorist in the first place.
In Iraq, the US involvement toppled Saddam Hussein but unleashed years of destruction in the political and city infrastructure after American withdrawal. US military intervention has rarely produced any democratic or positive outcomes for the local populations, and chances are high that it’ll be the same in Venezuela.
Pragmatic solutions
A more effective alternative to hemispheric stability is economically incentivized negotiation. Sanction relief, access to US markets, mediation and other calibrated pressures have delivered results in cases like the Abraham Accords’ normalization agreements and the Iran nuclear agreement framework. These approaches could align with Maduro’s recent public appeals for “peace, not war,” including his recent rendition of John Lennon’s “Imagine” at a November 2025 rally.
President Trump should align US interests with regional stability rather than try to justify a new conflict with the oil excuse, proving his adversaries right about the well-being of Americans being last on his administration’s list.
Moving forward
War at our borders is nothing like war in the Middle East. Americans would feel the direct striking consequences, such as refugee pressures and criminal spillover. Unilaterally deciding to run another sovereign country without a concrete plan for democratic transition or a clear exit strategy undermines civilian protections abroad and heightens danger at home.
Strategic restraint has been absent from US foreign policy for too long. At this moment, serious diplomacy — not reckless escalation — is urgently needed.
[Rosa Messer edited this piece]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
