LAHORE:
The shocking capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US military has hit political circles and regional capitals less as a shock than as a grim realization – a clear exercise of “imperial” power carried out in violation of established legal, diplomatic and sovereign norms, reopening the much-lamented “open veins of Latin America”.
Observers warn that the dramatic capture is the clearest expression yet of a deeper shift in U.S. conduct, signaling a shift away from diplomacy, indirect influence and institutional cover in favor of overt coercion exercised with remarkable confidence and a modicum of restraint.
This measure, widely denounced as a “kidnapping” of a sitting head of state, is a form of imperialism adapted to a period of hegemonic decline, in which sovereignty is increasingly conditional and force re-emerges as the main tool of political order.
“Renamed Monroe Doctrine”
Imdat Öner, a senior policy analyst at the Jack D. Gordon Institute and a former diplomat in Caracas, places the operation as part of a broader strategic doctrine rather than a presidential push.
“What we are seeing is a rebranded and reinterpreted Monroe Doctrine,” Öner told The Express PK Press Club. “For Trump, the Americas means the entire Western Hemisphere.”
He noted that Washington tested the waters in Panama and Mexico before acting decisively against Venezuela, where Maduro represented “the weakest link in the chain.”
Öner does not expect this approach to be mechanically replicated outside of Latin America. However, he warned that it was unlikely that this would remain without consequences. “This will have repercussions in other spheres of influence,” he said, particularly in countries neighboring China and Russia, where major powers could learn lessons about the legality of unilateral enforcement.
“China, the main driving force”
According to Öner, the US president would now be more emboldened and an emboldened Trump means showing less patience with diplomacy and an increasing use of pressure.
“The United States is becoming louder, faster and more transactional,” he notes, describing a posture in which coercion replaces negotiation and blunt signals replace strategic ambiguity.
He notes that this shift has implications far beyond Latin America. In East Asia, particularly with regard to Taiwan, stronger and more explicit signals may appear to strengthen deterrence, but they also increase the risk of escalation. As ambiguity gives way to forceful declarations, diplomatic exit routes narrow. “It is more difficult to reverse the brutal signals,” Öner warned, “for everyone.”
At the structural level, he identified China as the main driver of Washington’s behavior.
As American soft power erodes, through the dismantling of development aid, the weakening of diplomatic credibility and the exhaustion of liberal legitimacy, Washington is doubling down on hard instruments, including sanctions, military deployments and control of strategic resources.
Energy, minerals and supply chains have become tools of geopolitical control.
Venezuela’s oil wealth sits squarely at the intersection of these pressures. With the world’s largest proven reserves, the country represents both a material reward and a symbolic assertion of dominance. Control of Venezuelan energy resources serves U.S. energy interests while undermining China’s long-standing economic engagement with Caracas.
Öner warned against expectations of rapid transformation in Venezuela. Even though Maduro has been removed from office, Chavismo remains entrenched in key institutions.
He does not see a brutal break but a slow and managed transition, shaped by the Trump administration, which could stabilize the system in the short term while leaving the risk of further instability intact.
Observers note that this model of forced intervention followed by indefinite management is characteristic of neocolonial power. Control is asserted without responsibility while order is imposed without legitimacy and extraction products without responsibility.
Unrestrained neocolonialism
For philosopher and professor emeritus of Dublin City University Helena Sheehan, the operation strips imperial power even of its rhetorical disguise.
She deplored it as “blatant and brutal”, arguing that it represents a form of politics of the strongest, “a politics without even bothering to justify it by other standards”.
Sheehan called the raid symptomatic of an empire in decline, warning that such decline is unlikely to be rapid or orderly. “Its decline will be long and prolonged, with much misery yet to come.”
“A significant change”
According to Renata Segura, director of the Latin America and Caribbean program at the International Crisis Group, the raid reflects a substantial shift in how the Trump administration now approaches the region.
Segura said the national security strategy released weeks before the operation made it clear that Washington increasingly viewed Latin America as a defined zone of influence rather than a zone of partnership.
Since the attack, statements from Trump and senior officials such as Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reflect a view of the United States as a police power in the hemisphere, guided primarily by American interests rather than regional stability or international norms.
“And that they’re willing to do whatever it takes to really get what they want.”
She stressed that Venezuela is the most obvious target, but that the concern is regional. Segura highlighted repeated threats directed at Colombia, Mexico and other countries, where the use of force was considered if governments pursued policies that ran counter to Washington’s preferences. The message, according to her, is not limited to Caracas.
The history of Latin America makes these fears understandable. US-backed coups, invasions and military interventions have shaped the region for decades.
For Segura, what distinguishes the present moment is the break with the strategies of recent decades, when Washington relied more on bilateral cooperation, diplomatic engagement and indirect pressure.
The collapse of American soft power is equally significant. As development and assistance mechanisms such as USAID are effectively dismantled and force increasingly replaces persuasion, Segura sees a return to the interventionist practices associated with earlier eras.
