top of page
Search

From Iraq to Venezuela: How Great Powers Weaponize Democracy

Venezuela Beyond Just the Fall Stories 

The crisis in Venezuela is no longer merely a tragedy of internal misrule. It has become an indictment of American power exercised without restraint. By December 2025, the United States had moved beyond sanctions and diplomacy into open military coercion launching naval strikes, enforcing a de facto blockade, and killing over a hundred people under the guise of an “anti-narcotics campaign.” This escalation was not compelled by imminent threat, nor authorized by any multilateral mandate. It was a choice one that reflects how easily military force is deployed when a weak state resists strategic compliance.


Washington’s justification has shifted repeatedly: democracy promotion, humanitarian concern, sanctions enforcement, counter-cartel operations. Yet none withstand scrutiny when weighed against the scale and form of intervention. Venezuela does not threaten U.S. territory, its trade routes, or its population. What it does challenge is a long-standing expectation that resource-rich states in the Western Hemisphere align economically and strategically with U.S. preferences. When persuasion failed, pressure followed. When pressure failed, force arrived.


The resort to military action exposes the hollowness of the United States’ claim to defend a rules-based international order. Naval blockades, extraterritorial strikes, and the designation of civilians as “unlawful combatants” without due process undermine the very legal norms Washington claims to uphold. Even more alarming is the precedent being asserted: that decades-old resource nationalization can justify present-day military punishment. This is not law enforcement. It is retroactive coercion backed by firepower.


Venezuela’s governance failures are undeniable, but they do not legitimize external violence. The United States has not intervened to restore democracy; it has intervened to enforce hierarchy. Sanctions weakened Venezuelan society, not its ruling elite. Military strikes further criminalize poverty while insulating those in power. What emerges is not a strategy of liberation but one of discipline designed to remind other states of the cost of defiance.


The Venezuelan confrontation therefore represents something far larger than a bilateral dispute. It signals a return to a dangerous doctrine which might determine rights, multilateralism is optional, and military force is normalized as a tool of economic enforcement. If this logic prevails, Venezuela will not be the last state to learn that sovereignty is conditional and that resistance is met not with negotiation, but with guns.


Venezuela’s Strategic Role: Oil, Geography, and Struggle in the Face of Resistance  

Venezuela’s strategic significance here is geologists’ first clue. With approximately 303 billion barrels of oil reserves, the country occupies a “strategic position” in global energy markets despite a declining production end of the range. Oil is not just a means of generating a profit, though. 


It is a foundation of state power, fiscal autonomy, and diplomatic leverage. Oil control decides not only the people who benefit but also the parties who decide. Venezuela’s insistence on state power over its oil was, then, as much a political as an economic act. By retaining ownership of PDVSA, resisting total privatisation, and reappropriating revenues through the channels of a national goal, the Venezuelan state demonstrated an independence strident against the global energy governance in use. 


This assertion was legal, historically well-accepted, and rooted in sovereign precedent, but it was strategically disruptive. What ensued was not direct confrontation but, rather, gradual detachment. Venezuela refused to increase integration into U.S.-centric financial systems and sought alternative partnerships, and described resource sovereignty as tied to political independence. 


By the turn of the 21st century, this autonomy was recast not as a policy decision, but as a threat. Geography hardened the reaction. Venezuela’s position in the Western Hemisphere, along with its outreach to Russia, China, and Iran, turned defiance into provocation. As with its more distant provocateurs, Venezuela could not be underestimated with its autonomy, as it undermined the idea that it was the no-fault threats in the region. So the country moved from an energy supplier to a strategic anomaly, a matter of correction, not accommodation.  


Venezuela - USA Relations: From Cooperation to Confrontation

The relationship between Venezuela and the United States has been tense for many years. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world and is the third largest source of US petroleum, which made their connection both useful and complicated. Thus, making the relationship between the two not only political but both economical and environmental.


For much of the twentieth century, Venezuela occupied a significant place in the strategic space of the US. It was not a battlefield, not a rogue state but a reliable supplier of oil and a politically compliant partner. Their relation began to grow strongly, in the early twentieth century, when large American oil companies started exploring Venezuela’s rich oil fields. The US saw Venezuela as a key partner in Latin America and this created strong economic ties for many years.


In those early decades, oil was more than just energy, it was power, wealth and influence. The US supported Venezuela’s oil industry and helped build its infrastructure. For Venezuela, this partnership brought technology, employment and revenue but at the same time, it also made Venezuela’s economy heavily dependent on oil exports and the global market, which meant that any political change or price shift could affect the entire nation. And that dependence on oil, complicated the relationship over time.


The root of US-Venezuelan relations cannot be understood without reference to 2 major doctrines:


Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823 by US president James Monroe, as a warning to European powers against further colonial expansion in the west. Unlikely, what started as anti imperial declaration evolved into justification for exclusive US authority over political outcome in Venezuela. In practice, Monroe doctrine reduced Latin American sovereignty, established US authority as superior to regional self determination and created moral justification for future interventions framed as “protection”.


Roosevelt Corollary in 1904, introduced by the US President Theodore Rossevelt, went further and explicitly claimed the US right to intervene directly in domestic affairs of Latin American states if Washington judged them unstable, indebted or incapable of self governance. 


In the mid 20th century, Venezuela began to experience social and political movements that wanted more control over their own natural resources. They didn’t want foreign companies to control their national wealth. That idea, slowly, began to create distance between Venezuela and the United States.


How the crisis began: External Engineering, Internal Failures

The relationship between the US and Venezuela, shifted dramatically under the Chavez administration. In the late 1990s, Hugo Chavez rose to power with a promise to give more control of the country's wealth to its people and be free from foreign influence, and thus, Washington started getting wary of Venezuela’s autonomy. Tension escalated with Venezuela’s participation in OPEC and gradual efforts of oil nationalisation. Chavez initiated the Bolivarian Revolution, which focused on social programs, state control of oil and resistance to US interference. He strongly opposed the US foreign policy. In response, the United States, criticized his government for limiting press freedom and political opposition, while Chavez, accused the US of trying to control Latin America.


The tension grew stronger in the early 2000s, when Venezuela started building closer ties with Russia, China and Iran. This move worried the United States, as these nations are often seen as competitors. So, while Venezuela was seeking to diversify its partnership, the USA viewed it as a challenge to its traditional influence in Latin America. USA responded by reducing cooperation and targeted sanctions on certain Venezuelan officers, accusing them of corruption and undemocratic behaviour, Venezuela on the other hand, accused the US of trying to destabilize its government. The failed 2002 coup attempt against Chavez by the US, was widely criticized, which became a symbolic rupture in bilateral relations. This back and forth created a deep mistrust that has lasted for more than two decades, shaping the way both nations see each other even today. 


After Hugo Chavez’s death in 2013, Nicolas Maduro took over the fragile economy as Venezuela’s president. Maduro promised to continue Chavez’s policies, but the country soon entered into a serious economic crisis, inflation rose, unemployment reached its height and millions of Venezuelans began leaving the country. Sanctions compounded Venezuela’s economic crisis, transforming internal mismanagement into systemic collapse. The United States strategy involved severe economic sanctions, financial isolation, recognition of alternative leadership and legal seizures of state assets abroad and that is exactly what Washington did. It blamed the government’s mismanagement, while Venezuela blamed external pressure and sanctions. As the situation worsened, the relationship became even more difficult.


The US recognized opposition leader, Juan Guaido, as Venezuela’s legitimate president in 2019, while Maduro remained in power with the support of military and allies like Russia and China. This move by the US highlights that the strategy evolved into what can be described as regime change without troops.


The United States Intervention: A Conflict of Interests, Not an Ideal  

The U.S. intervention in Venezuela has been framed using shifting narratives such as democracy, human rights, narcotics, and security, but they mask more stable underlying incentives. The first is domination of strategic resources. 


Those restrictions on PDVSA in 2019 are not symbolic; they are economic attacks that strike deep into the state. By choking off oil exports, freezing assets, and cutting off access to international credit, the sanctions turned Venezuela’s structural flaws into systemic failure. 


The fall of state revenue wasn’t incidental. Rather, it was instrumental. 


The second is ideological discipline. Venezuela’s political alignment put the nation well beyond the acceptable range of dissent. The alliances it forged with rival powers cast the country as a geopolitical liability rather than a governance problem. In practice, the legitimacy of governments as a whole has been measured not so much by electoral processes as by alignment with dominant strategic architectures. 


The third is hierarchical stability. International order is often described neutrally, and yet it functions unevenly. Some states fail; others are corrected. Venezuela was in the latter camp. Intervention aimed to restore predictability rather than democratic outcomes, making sure political experiments do not destabilise longstanding distributions of power.  


The “Democracy Promotion”: Regime Change Policy Historical Pattern

There’s a weapon that powerful countries use to get rid of leaders they don’t like from other countries. It’s called a coup d'etat - a French word that means punch or a blow, it kind of means coming in and forcibly punching the government out of the power, no elections, no process just power being seized. The truth is that the powerful nations would often get their way by whatever means necessary.


While the US has been involved in tons of regime change efforts around the world, mainstream discourse often treats US interventions as well intentioned efforts that went wrong. From the cold war to the post 9/11 era, into the present multipolar moment. Washington has repeatedly pursued political outcomes abroad by reshaping leadership structure, under the mask of anti communism, human rights, counterterrorism and democracy, but the operational logic remains constant.


Step ONE: Delegitimization of Leadership

Every intervention begins with a narrative move that the targeted government must first be rendered legitimate. This delegitimization is rarely framed as disagreement but instead leaders are portrayed as Dictators, Authoritarians, Corrupt strongmen or threats to their own people. Crucially, legitimacy is always withdrawn externally irrespective of electoral outcomes or constitutional processes. This tactic has appeared repeatedly in Iran, Chile and now Venezuela.


Step TWO: Economic Pressure and Sanctions

Economic sanctions can be described as a peaceful alternative to war as it produces internal breakdown. Sanctions target, financial systems, energy exports, trade access and currency stability. Then, the impact is often reframed as evidence of the targeted government’s failure, thus creating a self justifying cycle. Economic pressure, therefore, becomes a form of pre warfare.


Step THREE: Opposition recognition, funding and political engineering

Once internal strain is maximized, Washington advances to political substitution. It funds opposition groups, recognizes alternative leaders and governments and provides diplomatic platforms and legitimacy to unelected actors. This practice reframes Democracy itself as legitimacy is no longer derived from domestic mandate but from external endorsement. This move has appeared across regions like Cold War Latin America, Post Arab Spring Middle East and Contemporary Eurasian and Caribbean Politics.


Step FOUR: Media Narrative Dominance and Moral Framing

No intervention succeeds without narrative control. The media plays a decisive role in shaping public consent, such as, democracy vs dictatorship, people vs tyrant, stability vs chaos. And thus, by the time pressure escalates, intervention appears not as threat but as rescue.


Step FIVE: Proxy War

The final stage of this pattern does not always involve launching fullscale war. In many cases, the threat of force is enough. The United States often applies military pressure without direct invasion in the form of military exercises near borders, arms support to allies and intelligence sharing with opposition forces, where local actors fight while major power remains in the background. Thus, a continuous unrest and a government constantly under pressure struggles to function even without foreign troops on the ground.


Micro-Case Studies: Pressure as Policy, Not Just Another Exception 

Venezuela’s treatment fits a broader trajectory in which coercion supplants consent.  

Latin America  

In Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973), elected governments seeking economic independence were toppled in the wake of external intervention. In Nicaragua, economic warfare and proxy conflict resulted in a world-class international ruling against the United States, one for which it got exactly the ruling that was not to be listened to. These cases legitimized the notion that regional sovereignty was suspended when it contravened strategic imperatives.  


Middle East  

In Iran, oil nationalisation took precedence over regime removal. Iraq’s invasion destroyed state capacity on contested legal grounds. Libya’s intervention, which was originally presented as a humanitarian act, contributed to fragmentation and continued instability. Syria experienced sanctions and proxy warfare that crushed civilian life while solidifying authoritarian rule. Pressure everywhere led to collapse rather than compliance. Venezuela has inherited this legacy. The tools differ, but the logic is unchanged: pressure applied until the response proves untenable.  


Sanctions as Modern Warfare  

Sanctions tend to be portrayed as muted forms of force. They work in practice as mechanisms of attrition. 


In Venezuela, sanctions contributed to:  

  1. chronic shortages of medicine and medical equipment, as financial restrictions disrupted imports.  

  2. currency collapse and hyperinflation, ravaging wages and savings.  

  3. Mass civilian suffering, ending in one of the largest peacetime migration crises in the world, with nearly 8 million Venezuelans pushed from their homes.  


Sanctions were defended as targeted, but they spread systemically. Financial institutions shunned transactions entirely, humanitarian exceptions failed in execution, and scarcity became entrenched. Those with dollars, with smuggling routes, or with state connections survived; everybody else suffered the consequences. Sanctions did not weaken authoritarianism; they hardened it. Scarcity centralized power, criminalized survival, and obliterated the political middle ground. Economic collapse became, in the long run, self-perpetuating: sustained, no less, because it worked, just as it has been a policy over the years.  


Taiwan as the next target? : Future of Interventionism

When examined through the lens of US foreign policy behavior, Venezuela appears less as a victim of economic crisis and dictatorship and more as a template of how the US deals with countries that do not align with its interests. Taking lessons from Venezuela and a warning from history, the future of interventionism does not always look like invasion but framed as protection and moral necessity and right now, Taiwan stands at the center of this transformation. 


Taiwan occupies a central position in global semiconductor supply chains, western pacific military strategy and the US alliance credibility in Asia. And,the US officials have frequently asserted that they are protecting Taiwan from coercion, yet protection in practice often comes with escalation, similarly, with respect to China, Taiwan’s democratic model sharply contrasts with the political model of China which is then justified in the name of military cooperation, weapons and security deals, economical and technological rivalry.


Venezuela showed what happens when sovereignty is overridden in the name of principles and values. And now, the real question is, Taiwan may determine whether the world has learned the lesson or is prepared to repeat it on a far more dangerous stage.


Conclusion

From Latin America to the Middle East, from Venezuela’s oil to Taiwan’s strategic waters, the pattern has been recurring. Each step of this matrix leaves behind a weakened state, fractured society and shadows of instability. Venezuela’s tragedy is not only the failure of Venezuela, but also the failure of its success. Internal misrule put a nation in a vulnerable position; foreign pressure turned vulnerability into collapse. What emerged was not democratic renewal, but a hollowed state in survival mode.


When coercion supplants engagement, pressure supplants reform, and suffering is a rhetorical tool, outcomes do not mirror aspirations or ideals. Venezuela showed us the cost of this motive. A sovereign nation turned into a testing ground for economic warfare and political engineering, all in the name of restoring democracy. And, the result was not freedom but prolonged suffering, not stability but dependency - A familiar outcome of a familiar playbook. 


Now is the time to ask hard questions that polite diplomacy avoids. When democracy starts requiring sanctions that starve economies, and silences the narratives, what exactly is being protected? When peace is pursued through pressure, isolation, and coercion, who truly benefits? And when sovereignty is respected only when it aligns with power, is it sovereignty at all?


This is the moment to wake up. No nation, however powerful, has the right to decide the political fate of others under the pretense of moral superiority. It’s high time that nations start recognizing patterns before they repeat, rather than after they devastate. And, if the world continues to mistake power for principle, Venezuela will not be the warning of the past, but the review of the future.


Because history does not punish ignorance, it punishes denial.


References:



 
 
 
bottom of page