Trump’s Venezuela Operation Echoes Past American Mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan

The United States has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to remove governments with speed and overwhelming force, yet history shows that the aftermath of such interventions often proves far more complex and destructive. From Afghanistan in 2001 to Iraq in 2003, Washington promised democratic transformation, stability, and renewal. Instead, these countries experienced prolonged violence, political fragmentation, and the eventual return or rise of forces far more hostile than those initially removed.

In Afghanistan, US-backed forces swiftly dismantled the Taliban regime and installed Hamid Karzai as leader, projecting confidence that democracy would take hold. Two decades later, the US-supported political order collapsed almost overnight, allowing the Taliban to reclaim power. Iraq followed a similar trajectory, where the toppling of Saddam Hussein dismantled state institutions, fuelled sectarian conflict, destabilised the region, and enabled the emergence of the Islamic State.

It is against this historical pattern that the latest US military operation in Venezuela must be assessed. President Donald Trump publicly hailed the seizure of Nicolás Maduro as a flawless operation, involving special forces, air power, and naval coordination. While tactically successful and achieved without reported US casualties, the intervention represents a sharp departure from Trump’s long-standing opposition to foreign wars and regime-change policies.

Also Read: Trump Warns Colombia Over Cocaine Trade After Maduro’s Capture

The United States has a long record of foreign-imposed regime change, having contributed to the removal of roughly 35 foreign leaders over the past century. Academic studies indicate that nearly one-third of such interventions are followed by civil war within a decade. From Guatemala to Panama, these actions have frequently produced enduring instability rather than political renewal, eroding local legitimacy and weakening state structures.

In Venezuela, the US administration has justified its actions by portraying Maduro as a criminal figure, yet it has offered limited clarity on the political roadmap ahead. Whether Washington intends to install a new leadership, supervise a transition, or exert indirect pressure remains uncertain. Historical precedent suggests that removing a leader is often the simplest phase, while managing the consequences has consistently proven far more perilous.

Also Read: Trump Claims U.S. Forces Have Captured Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas Operation