In the immediate aftermath of the apprehension of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, writers drew clear linkages between this extraction and that of Panamanian President Manuel Noriega in 1989. This conclusion is a valid and insightful comparison, but is it the best one that can be made? Contrary to mainstream media reporting on this subject, I will argue that the Maduro capture bears a closer resemblance to a CIA-staged coup in Iran in 1953 that overthrew the Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. In both these instances, a clear motive emerged: Trump’s desire for cheap oil.
True to the U.S.’s taste for displays of power, Bush deployed some 27,000 American troops into Panama. After Noriega and a mistress traversed the city in a Hyundai, ducking in and out of a Dairy Queen on the way, they eventually settled in the Vatican Embassy, where the U.S. was forbidden to extract him. Instead, in a peculiar form of siege warfare, the U.S Army played heavy metal outside of the Vatican Embassy. The appropriately curated playlist included such numbers as “Wanted Dead or Alive” by Bon Jovi and “Panama” by Van Halen. When the smoke (or, rather, music) cleared after 10 days, Noriega submitted himself to custody. It was a scene more reminiscent of Apocalypse Now than any serious military protocol I’ve encountered but then, again, one wonders how different the U.S. today is with Trump essentially live-tweeting the circumstances of the Maduro arrest.
Unlike Maduro, Mossadegh was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran who enjoyed broad support from his people. However, like Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez, he made the perilous decision to nationalise his country’s oil reserves to the chagrin of the US., UK., and other Western nations. In order to protect British oil assets, the United States initiated Operation Ajax via the CIA, and the U.K. initiated Operation Boot via MI6. In just four days, Mossadegh was overthrown, and a secular, pro-Western, anti-communist regime was instituted in his place. Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian Revolution would topple Shah Pahlavi around fifteen years later. What followed would be decades of enmity between the Iranian regime and the U.S.
The similarities between the 1953 coup and the 2026 extraction are myriad and important to understand the historical resonance of Trump’s brazen actions. Both operations were in contravention of international law and violations of another nation’s sovereignty. Perhaps more tellingly, regime change in Iran was ultimately futile and merely led to an even harsher, more fiercely anti-American regime to emerge in its wake. Trump and Rubio seem to be enamored with the idea of “running” Venezuela, but the de facto leader to emerge seems to be Maduro’s right-hand woman, Delcy Rodríguez. Judging from the 1953 coup, it appears improbable that any new Venezuelan regime will be firmly pro-American. Indeed, despite María Corina Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize gift to Trump, it appears unlikely that Trump will allow her to have any influence over Venezuela’s power dynamics.
An important caveat to this comparison is that Maduro enjoyed no popular mandate or legitimacy amongst his own people, unlike Mossadegh. In fact, Maduro has repeatedly rigged elections and maintained a stranglehold on power to such an extent that Trump may wish to emulate Maduro’s actions. Trump has been known to change his opinions on foreign leaders quite frequently, so perhaps we can expect to see Nicolás Maduro as his campaign advisor in 2028.
“Maduro and Cilia Flores captured,” author: Centre Culturel Cao Dai via Flickr (Public Domain)
Roge Karma’s incisive commentary on the questionable tact of the U.S. looking abroad for oil when it has bountiful reserves at home leads me to my third point: Trump’s desire for oil. Like Ahab pursuing the White Whale to his own detriment, Trump seems poised to pursue Venezuelan oil to the detriment not only of his domestic appeal but also of the US’s legitimacy on the global stage. As Darren Woods and other oil executives have expressed their skepticism at the prospect of rejuvenating the Venezuelan oil industry, Trump has cast himself into the international wilderness, with even Vladimir Putin decrying his actions.
The crucial question is, what will be Trump’s next move? If discussions about the FAFO policy or the “Donroe Doctrine” suggest anything, it would be prudent for the EU to confront Trump’s imperial aspirations in Greenland. Denmark is seemingly doing just that after deploying more troops to the island over the past few weeks. But despite Rubio’s insistence at the Munich Security Conference that the U.S. is a “child of Europe,” the EU may want to consider how to act if that child starts stealing from its parents. The only language Trump understands is power. European and Danish leaders are wise to demonstrate that they won’t give over Greenland without a fight.
The mere fact that the current situation with regime change in Venezuela, fractures within NATO, and murders in Minneapolis has arisen is a foreseeable consequence of a second Trump term. The damage to international norms has been incontrovertible and irreversible, and will only inspire autocrats like Putin and Xi to act with more impunity. Just one year into his second four-year term, the potential irreversible damage to international norms, institutions, and ethics is unsettling.
So what’s the endgame? Well, Putin has shown no sign of relenting in his imperialist expansion, and the latest “peace” proposals offered by Witkoff and Trump’s cronies give Putin considerable amounts of Ukraine. It’s almost a cliche at this point, but this policy of appeasement, which has been tried and failed before will undoubtedly inspire Putin to indulge his dreams of Russkiy Mir and of reuniting the Soviet Empire. As for Xi, his quiet expansion over vast areas of the South China Sea has been met with little to no concrete international backlash, and his ambitions will now be set on Taiwan. To summarize the pith and gist, if Trump is permitted to extract Maduro, what’s to stop Putin from doing the same with Zelensky or Xi from doing the same with Lai Ching-te?
Similar to Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, and numerous other conflicts, the recent confrontation between the United States and Venezuela has disproportionately affected everyday people. Reporting for The New Yorker, Daniel Alarcón documented scenes from the Simón Bolívar bridge at the Colombian border city of Cúcuta. During the eighties and nineties, emigration from war and cartel-ravaged Colombia to Venezuela was commonplace. Colombians, fleeing violence, would journey across the border, carrying only the clothes on their back, seeking a better life for their children. Today, that migration pattern is inverted, with emigration from Venezuela to Colombia increasingly commonplace. Venezuelans have been fleeing the Maduro regime in large numbers, with over seven million leaving the country since 2015. And, as previously mentioned, with Delcy Rodriguez still in charge and Trump more concerned about Venezuelan oil than Venezuelan lives, it is unlikely that this trend will reverse course.
Government.ru, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Tom Friedman has a tendency to oversimplify complex geopolitics but, in the case of the Maduro capture, he’s spot-on. In an opinion column for the New York Times, Friedman reemphasises the “pottery-store principle” he had provided for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Simply put, if you break it, you own it. In the past, the United States failed miserably by this standard, committing war crimes in Iraq and leaving Afghanistan in shambles for the Taliban to re-emerge. In Venezuela, Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth are now responsible for 28 million lives. Judging by their disdain for the lives of their own Hispanic citizens, it seems unlikely that they will suddenly feel charitable towards millions of foreign civilians. Indeed, are we on the verge of an even greater humanitarian catastrophe in the Western Hemisphere?
Mark Twain famously observed that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. After witnessing the U.S. take the Philippines in 1899, Twain surely thought that a new age of imperialism was ascendant. Right now, considering the war in Iran, is history rhyming, or even repeating?
Further Reading
‘Big Oil Knows That Trump’s Venezuela Plans Are Delusional’ by Rogé Karma for The Atlantic (2026)
_04.jpg){kind=link}