I don’t think that theory holds up. Venezuela isn’t some easy pressure point the U.S. can just “use” in a geopolitical chess match. The country is larger than Vietnam, extremely difficult to occupy, and perfectly suited for long-term guerrilla warfare. Any attempt to strong-arm it would turn into a massive drain with no real upside.
The U.S. already struggled to control far smaller and less resilient regions — Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan — and Venezuela would be even harder. Regional neighbors like Colombia would quietly support resistance, and anti-U.S. sentiment across Latin America would explode.
And beyond that, the American public has no appetite for another foreign conflict. We’re nearly $39 trillion in debt, people distrust the government more than ever, and nobody is willing to die in a war with Venezuela over some geopolitical flex.
If Trump is trying to use Venezuela as a bargaining chip against Russia, it’s a reckless and unrealistic strategy that would almost certainly devolve into a quagmire.
And while a U.S. attack could actually boost Maduro’s standing at home by rallying nationalist sentiment against foreign intervention, I’ll admit that this dynamic isn’t universal. Saddam didn’t gain popularity when the U.S. invaded Iraq. But the context is completely different: Iraq had been devastated by sanctions and previous wars, and many Iraqis already viewed Saddam as illegitimate. Venezuela, on the other hand, has a long history of resisting U.S. influence, and foreign aggression tends to unify Latin American populations — even those who dislike their leaders.
We'll have to wait and see what happens, but there's a good chance your post won't age well.
