Triad of evil: President Donald Trump, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio monitor
US military operations in Venezuela. Photo by Molly Rile
“Every ruling power tells stories to justify its rule.” — Noam Chomsky
Venezuela’s geopolitical significance has long been tied to its vast oil reserves. In recent years, Venezuelan crude has increasingly been sold to China, the world’s largest oil importer and notably outside the US dollar system, with transactions reportedly conducted in alternative currencies. China has become Venezuela’s primary oil buyer, a development that directly challenges long-standing US economic dominance in the region.
Against this backdrop, the United States under President Donald Trump has escalated its military posture toward Venezuela. Reports indicate the mobilisation of approximately 15 000 US troops, alongside warships and fighter jets. Bombardments have been reported and Trump has gone so far as to capture and transfer Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife to the United States.
The Trump administration has justified these actions as part of a campaign against drug cartels and so-called “narco-terrorism,” framing them as unlawful combatants posing a threat to US national security. Yet this narrative rings hollow. Despite decades of militarised “wars on drugs,” narcotics continue to enter the United States at scale. The invocation of narco-terrorism appears less a genuine security strategy than a discursive tool — another story deployed to legitimise intervention.
To understand this escalation, one must return to the Monroe Doctrine. First articulated in 1823, the doctrine declared Latin America to be the exclusive sphere of influence of the United States, warning external powers against involvement in the region. While framed as an anti-colonial measure, it evolved into a mechanism for US imperial control, repeatedly invoked to justify interventions, coups, sanctions and regime-change operations throughout Latin America.
In this sense, Venezuela is not an exception but a continuation. The Monroe Doctrine remains alive — if not in name, then in practice. Venezuela’s socialist orientation, its refusal to submit to US economic orthodoxy, its decision to trade oil outside the dollar system and its alliances with US rivals all represent violations of an unwritten rule: Latin America must not chart an independent political or economic course.
This directly conflicts with sovereignty under international law. The principle of state sovereignty is a cornerstone of the modern international legal order and is enshrined in Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter, which affirms the sovereign equality of all states. Article 2(4) further prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, while Article 2(7) bars intervention in matters essentially within a state’s domestic jurisdiction.
Under international law, regime change, coercive economic measures and military intervention are unlawful unless authorised by the UN Security Council or undertaken in genuine self-defence against an armed attack. Political ideology, economic policy choices, migration pressures, or alliances with rival powers do not constitute lawful grounds for intervention. The selective invocation of “national security” to override these principles reflects not legality, but power.
The message is therefore not directed at Venezuela alone. It is a warning to the entire region: defiance of US hegemony will be met with force. Destabilisation also serves domestic US objectives, including the deterrence of migration. There are currently over 770 000 Venezuelans living in the United States, many displaced by economic collapse worsened by sanctions and international isolation.
Following US intervention, Venezuelan oil is once again reportedly being traded in US dollars, underscoring the economic interests beneath the rhetoric of security and legality.
Israel, a settler-colonial state, welcomed the US action, praising the blow dealt to Iran’s regional influence. This reaction is unsurprising. Maduro’s government maintained close ties with Iran and consistently opposed Israeli policies. The episode thus fits neatly into a broader global alignment, where US and Israeli strategic interests converge against states that resist Western dominance.
What emerges is not a war on drugs, nor a defence of democracy, but a familiar pattern: the Monroe Doctrine updated for the 21st century — operating in direct tension with international law, enforced through bombs, sanctions and stories of security that mask the preservation of the empire.
Sõzarn Barday is a South African lawyer. She writes on human rights, international law, and political developments in the Middle East. The views expressed are her own.