Embedded Files
Written by Carthan Connnolly
January 21, 2026
In early January, Venezuela became the site of an abrupt and unprecedented geopolitical rupture. A U.S.-led operation removed President Nicolás Maduro from power, citing allegations of narcotrafficking, democratic breakdown, and threats to regional stability. Within hours, global reactions polarized along familiar lines: some framed the event as a long-overdue intervention against authoritarianism, while others condemned it as an unlawful violation of sovereignty. Yet these immediate interpretations, whether celebratory or critical, risk obscuring a deeper and more consequential question: what constellation of political, economic, and ideological forces made Venezuela the object of such decisive external action?
Photo from PBS (Annabelle Gordon/REUTERS)
At the level of official discourse, democracy occupies the center of the justification. Over the past decade, Venezuela’s political system has been characterized by disputed elections, institutional erosion, and the systematic marginalization of opposition forces. From this perspective, the intervention appears as an effort to restore constitutional order and reassert democratic norms that had been hollowed out from within. Such framing is consistent with a broader tradition of liberal internationalism, in which military force is presented as a moral obligation.
However, Venezuela’s crisis cannot be understood solely in political terms. Beneath the collapse of democratic institutions lies a parallel structural reality: Venezuela is one of the most resource-rich states in the world, possessing vast oil reserves that have historically defined its economic and geopolitical significance. Oil has long functioned as both a source of national wealth and a mechanism of external vulnerability, tying the country’s internal stability to global energy markets and foreign strategic interests. As sanctions, infrastructural decay, and state mismanagement weakened Venezuela’s oil industry, the country became simultaneously less economically functional and more strategically legible as an object of intervention.
It is within this intersection of democratic discourse and resource politics that the meaning of the intervention becomes less transparent. If democratic restoration were the primary impetus, one might ask why comparable interventions do not occur in other authoritarian states lacking similar strategic value. Conversely, if oil exploitation were the decisive motive, it would be difficult to ignore the genuine political repression and humanitarian deterioration that preceded January’s events. Rather than resolving this tension, the Venezuelan case exposes how moral and material logics often operate in tandem, reinforcing rather than negating each other.
Oil refinery in Los Taques, Venezuela, Photo from The AP (Matias Delacroix)/AP)
This convergence complicates traditional distinctions between idealism and realism in foreign policy. Democratic rhetoric does not merely mask economic interests; it provides a normative framework through which those interests can be articulated as legitimate. At the same time, the presence of valuable resources does not automatically invalidate claims of humanitarian concern; instead, it raises questions about why certain crises become intolerable to the international community while others persist without comparable intervention. Venezuela thus becomes less an anomaly than a revealing example of how power, morality, and materiality are entangled in contemporary global politics.
Moreover, the temporal dimension of Venezuela’s collapse challenges the notion that intervention was a sudden or inevitable response. The erosion of democratic institutions, the collapse of economic infrastructure, and the mass displacement of Venezuelan citizens unfolded over years, not days. External actors observed this deterioration long before acting, suggesting that the threshold for intervention is not defined solely by moral urgency but by shifting calculations of strategic relevance. In this sense, the intervention redefines which crises are deemed actionable.
Ultimately, the significance of the Venezuela intervention lies not in the question of whether it was motivated by democracy or oil, but in how these categories blur under scrutiny. The language of democratic restoration and the logic of resource exploitation are not mutually exclusive explanations but overlapping dimensions of a single geopolitical event. Venezuela’s trajectory invites a more unsettling inquiry: to what extent do contemporary interventions reflect genuine commitments to political ideals, and to what extent do those ideals become intelligible only when aligned with material interests? In confronting this ambiguity, the Venezuelan case offers less clarity than discomfort—but it is precisely this discomfort that reveals how modern power is exercised, justified, and understood. With Mr. Feldmeth, we learned about realism as an international relations theory—the idea that states ultimately act in pursuit of power, security, and strategic interest rather than purely moral ideals. Viewed through that lens, the events in Venezuela demand a more careful consideration of what is truly at stake, and of how ideals and interests may be far more intertwined than they first appear.
Sources:
Associated Press. “Immersive Lays Out Crumbling Infrastructure, Shifting Geopolitics of Venezuela Oil.” Associated Press, 2026. https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/best-of-the-week/second-winner/2026/immersive-lays-out-crumbling-infrastructure-shifting-geopolitics-of-venezuela-oil/
BBC News. BBC News Article, c93n4nx5yqro. BBC, accessed January 2026. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93n4nx5yqro
Brennan Center for Justice. “No Legal Basis in Invading Venezuela.” Brennan Center for Justice, accessed January 2026. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/no-legal-basis-invading-venezuela
Associated Press. “House Republicans Barely Defeat War Powers Resolution to Check Trump’s Military Actions in Venezuela.” AP News, January 22, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/19b78647b9d39cad589fa9fc4477e815.
The New York Times. “Latin America Voters Narrowly Support Maduro’s Removal but Don’t Want the U.S. to ‘Run’ Venezuela.” The New York Times, January 21, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/world/americas/latin-america-venezuela-us-raid-maduro-polls.html
PBS NewsHour. “Fact‑Checking Trump’s Claims after U.S. Strike on Venezuela and Capture of Maduro.” PBS, January 4, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-claims-after-u-s-strike-on-venezuela-and-capture-of-maduro
PBS NewsHour. “Venezuelans Face Uncertainty While Awaiting Trump’s Next Moves with the Country.” PBS, January 4, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/venezuelans-face-uncertainty-while-awaiting-trumps-next-moves-with-the-country
United States Mission to the United Nations. “Remarks at a U.N. Security Council Briefing on Venezuela.” United States Mission to the U.N., January 2026. https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-a-un-security-council-briefing-on-venezuela-2/
White House. “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Safeguards Venezuelan Oil Revenue for the Good of the American and Venezuelan People.” The White House, January 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-safeguards-venezuelan-oil-revenue-for-the-good-of-the-american-and-venezuelan-people/
To comment on this post, access via Padlet
Page updated
Report abuse