The U.S. military attack on Venezuela on the third day of the new year marked a turning point in Washington’s “maximum pressure” strategy against independent governments. Carried out by direct order of Trump and, according to officials in Caracas, targeting civilian and military sites as well as the very heart of the city of Caracas, the attack demonstrated that the project of sanctions, media warfare, and political pressure has reached a dead end. For years, the United States sought—through crippling sanctions, the seizure of oil tankers under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking, and the destruction of the Maduro government’s financial resources—to pave the way for Venezuela’s submission or internal collapse.
However, social cohesion and popular support for the government in Caracas thwarted this scenario. Under such circumstances, resorting to the military option is not a sign of power, but an implicit admission of the failure of previous policies. Claims about Maduro’s arrest and removal from the country are less grounded in realities on the ground than they are part of psychological operations and narrative warfare. In practice, this action amounts to an overt coup against a popular government and a member of the United Nations, setting a dangerous precedent in international relations.
Scenario of Chaos and Civil War
The U.S. strategy in Venezuela is clearly based on “controlled chaos.” By supporting regime-change opposition forces, amplifying figures such as Machado, and granting them media and political legitimacy, Washington sought to create social rifts. The ultimate objective is either Maduro’s capitulation or dragging the country into a civil war—a model previously tested in Libya and Syria.
Control over Venezuela’s vast energy and mineral resources, alongside the geopolitical use of the country to contain Russia and China, constitutes the primary motivation behind this intervention. From this perspective, the U.S. military action is less about an immediate change of governance than about boosting opposition morale and sending an interventionist message to other independent states. At the same time, with an eye on domestic U.S. politics, Trump is attempting to portray himself as a “decisive” president who, unlike his predecessors, does not shy away from military action—although this costly display of decisiveness is, in reality, a cover for strategic failures.
Soft and Hard Coups in Latin America
Developments in Venezuela must be analyzed within the broader framework of the U.S. strategy to revive its traditional dominance over Latin America. Ignoring structural changes in the international system and the decline of its global standing, Washington continues to treat the region as its backyard. Support for far-right governments, pressure on migrants, and even symbolic actions such as renaming the Gulf of Mexico are all components of this policy.
The United States has simultaneously pursued two tracks of soft and hard coups: on the one hand, financial and media support for gradual power shifts in countries such as Bolivia, Chile, and Honduras; on the other, the creation of fear and military threats to coerce resistant governments. The failure of the soft coup in Venezuela pushed Washington toward the military option to prepare the ground for a political-military coup—while the false narrative of combating drug trafficking continues to be repeated as a propaganda cover.
Cognitive Warfare and the Message to Iran
The coincidence of the aggression against Venezuela with America’s seemingly supportive claims regarding popular protests in Iran carries a meaning far beyond mere simultaneity. Having failed to undermine Iran’s national cohesion and deterrent capabilities, Washington is pursuing a new phase of cognitive warfare—one aimed at diverting economic demands, whitewashing America’s image, and casting Trump as a savior.
The implicit message of the attack on Venezuela to the Iranian opposition is clear: the United States is prepared for direct intervention. This message is designed to securitize the environment and promote the specter of a “Libya-style” scenario. Yet the historical memory of the Iranian nation—from Afghanistan to Libya and Palestine—has shown that American “salvation” brings nothing but destruction. Vigilance against this cognitive warfare is a national necessity, because the Venezuelan experience has once again demonstrated that Western unilateralism poses a direct threat to the independence of nations.
NOURNEWS