US-Venezuela Dispute: How Did It Start? The Complete Historical Truth

📚 Free Download: Understanding International Relations

Deep dive into US-Latin America relations, oil geopolitics, and the truth behind international conflicts

Download Free PDF Book

The Question Everyone’s Asking: Who’s Really at Fault?

On January 3, 2026, the world watched in shock as U.S. military forces executed Operation Absolute Resolve—conducting airstrikes on Venezuelan infrastructure and capturing President Nicolás Maduro, who now faces narco-terrorism charges in a New York courtroom.

Depending on who you ask, this is either:

Version A: A justified military action against a narco-dictator who has destroyed Venezuela’s economy, violated human rights, and flooded the United States with drugs while clinging to power through electoral fraud.

Version B: An illegal act of aggression and kidnapping by an imperial power that has spent decades trying to control Venezuela’s oil resources and punish a sovereign nation for refusing to bend to American interests.

Here’s the uncomfortable reality: Neither version is completely false. And neither tells the whole truth.

The US-Venezuela dispute isn’t a simple story of good versus evil. It’s a 200-year relationship that evolved from cooperation to confrontation, shaped by oil, ideology, economics, and mutual distrust.

What I’m going to do in this article is walk you through the complete timeline—not the propaganda from Washington or Caracas, but the documented historical record. I’ll show you both perspectives, the verified facts, and the legitimate grievances on each side.

By the end, you’ll understand how two nations went from allies to adversaries, and why the “truth” depends heavily on which side of the border you’re standing on.

Part 1: The Foundation (1821-1998) - When Things Were Actually Good

Early Cooperation: A Promising Start

Most people don’t realize that US-Venezuela relations were overwhelmingly positive for over 170 years.

When Latin America fought for independence from Spain in the early 1800s, the United States was among the first to recognize these new nations. In 1821, the U.S. officially recognized Gran Colombia—a republic that included modern-day Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama.

The relationship was built on shared anti-colonial sentiment. Both nations had fought European empires for independence, and there was genuine goodwill between them.

1830s-1900s: Economic Partnership Takes Root

After Venezuela became an independent nation in 1830, economic ties strengthened. Trade flourished. American companies began investing in Venezuelan agriculture and infrastructure. Relations remained cordial—occasionally tense over border disputes or trade issues, but fundamentally cooperative.

The 1902-1903 Crisis: The First Real Test

The first serious conflict came in 1902, when Venezuela defaulted on foreign debts owed to European creditors.

What happened:

• Venezuelan President Cipriano Castro refused to pay debts to Britain, Germany, and Italy
• These European powers responded with a naval blockade of Venezuelan ports
• They seized Venezuelan ships and bombarded coastal fortifications

The U.S. Response:

This created a dilemma for the United States. Under the Monroe Doctrine (established in 1823), the U.S. had declared that European military intervention in the Americas would be considered a threat to U.S. security.

But the U.S. didn’t intervene directly. Instead, President Theodore Roosevelt pressured all parties to resolve the dispute through international arbitration, which they did in 1903.

The Long-Term Impact:

This crisis led to the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which stated that the U.S. would intervene in Latin American nations to prevent European intervention. In practice, this meant:

“If you owe Europe money and can’t pay, we’ll take over your finances to prevent European military action.”

This was the beginning of what Latin Americans would later call American imperialism—the pattern of U.S. intervention in regional affairs supposedly to “protect” but actually to control.

From Venezuela’s perspective: The U.S. claimed to protect Latin America from European colonialism while establishing its own form of dominance.

From the U.S. perspective: Preventing European powers from gaining military footholds in the Americas was essential to national security, and economic intervention was preferable to military occupation.

The Oil Era: Venezuela Becomes Strategically Vital

Everything changed when massive oil reserves were discovered in Venezuela in the early 20th century.

By the 1920s-1930s, Venezuela became one of the world’s largest oil exporters. American oil companies—Mobil, Exxon, Gulf Oil, and others—invested billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil fields.

This created a fundamental dynamic that would define the relationship for the next century: Venezuela had oil. America wanted oil. Both benefited economically, but the power imbalance was inherent.

Mid-20th Century: The Dictatorship Years

During the Cold War (1940s-1980s), the United States prioritized anti-communist allies—even if they were dictators.

Marcos Pérez Jiménez (Venezuelan dictator 1952-1958) was a brutal authoritarian who:

• Suppressed political opposition
• Imprisoned and tortured dissidents
• Enriched himself through corruption

But he was also:

• Fiercely anti-communist
• Pro-American
• Welcoming to U.S. oil companies

The U.S. supported him, awarding him the Legion of Merit in 1954. When he was overthrown in 1958, the U.S. eventually granted him asylum.

From Venezuela’s perspective: The U.S. supported brutal dictators as long as they served American economic and political interests—human rights didn’t matter.

From the U.S. perspective: During the Cold War, preventing communist expansion in Latin America justified supporting imperfect but reliably pro-Western governments.

1960s-1990s: Mostly Stable Relations

After Pérez Jiménez, Venezuela transitioned to democracy. Relations with the U.S. remained strong throughout the 1960s-1990s:

• Venezuela became one of America’s top oil suppliers
• Bilateral trade exceeded $40 billion annually by the 1990s
• Both nations cooperated on drug interdiction
• Cultural and educational exchanges flourished

By 1998, US-Venezuela relations were among the strongest in Latin America.

Then everything changed.

Part 2: The Chávez Revolution (1998-2013) - How Cooperation Became Confrontation

1998: A Political Earthquake

In December 1998, Venezuelans elected Hugo Chávez—a former army officer who had attempted a coup in 1992 and spent two years in prison.

Who was Chávez?

Hugo Chávez was a charismatic, polarizing figure who ran on an explicitly anti-establishment, anti-corruption, and anti-U.S. platform. He promised to:

• Rewrite Venezuela’s constitution
• Redistribute wealth to the poor
• End corruption and oligarchic control
• Reject U.S. influence in Latin America
• Nationalize key industries, especially oil

Chávez’s Core Belief: The United States was an imperialist power that had exploited Latin America for decades, propping up dictators and extracting resources while keeping the region poor and dependent.

He called his vision the “Bolivarian Revolution”—named after Simón Bolívar, the 19th-century independence leader.

1999-2001: The Constitutional Overhaul

Chávez moved quickly:

1999: A new constitution was drafted and approved by referendum, giving the president expanded powers and renaming the country the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

2000-2001: Chávez began strengthening ties with Cuba (receiving advisors and doctors), China (negotiating oil deals), and Russia (purchasing military equipment).

He also started criticizing U.S. foreign policy openly—condemning the Iraq War plans, supporting Palestinian rights, and accusing the U.S. of exploiting the developing world.

The U.S. reaction was initially cautious. The Clinton and early Bush administrations engaged diplomatically, but concerns grew about Chávez’s authoritarian tendencies and anti-American rhetoric.

2002: The Failed Coup and the Breaking Point

In April 2002, a dramatic event shattered any remaining trust: a military coup briefly removed Chávez from power.

What happened:

• Opposition leaders, business groups, and military officers staged a coup
• Chávez was detained and a transitional government was announced
• Within 48 hours, massive pro-Chávez protests and loyal military units restored him to power

The Controversy:

Chávez immediately accused the United States of orchestrating the coup.

Evidence that emerged:

• U.S. officials had met with opposition leaders before the coup
• The CIA had advance knowledge of coup planning
• The U.S. State Department initially welcomed the transitional government
• Declassified documents later showed U.S. awareness but not direct involvement

The U.S. position: American officials denied orchestrating the coup, claiming they only monitored the situation and discouraged violence.

Chávez’s position: The U.S. knew about and tacitly supported the coup, revealing Washington’s true intentions toward his government.

The truth: Declassified documents confirm the U.S. had foreknowledge and didn’t discourage coup plotters, though direct CIA involvement has never been proven.

This event fundamentally changed Chávez’s view of the U.S.—from adversary to existential threat.

2003-2008: The Relationship Deteriorates

The years following the coup saw steady escalation:

2004-2005:

• Chávez expanded oil sales to China to reduce dependence on U.S. markets
• He provided discounted oil to Cuba in exchange for doctors and advisors
• He formed alliances with Iran and Russia, purchasing billions in weapons

2006:

• The U.S. imposed an arms embargo on Venezuela, citing inadequate cooperation on anti-terrorism efforts
• Chávez called President Bush a “devil” and “assassin” during a UN speech
• Both nations expelled each other’s diplomats on spying allegations

2007-2008:

• Venezuela supplied over $40 billion in oil to the U.S. despite hostile rhetoric
• Chávez nationalized foreign oil company assets, including those of ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips
• The companies sued for compensation; Chávez refused

From Venezuela’s perspective: Nationalizing oil was reclaiming sovereignty over resources that rightfully belonged to Venezuelans, not foreign corporations.

From the U.S. perspective: Seizing American company assets without fair compensation violated international law and property rights.

2009-2013: Obama’s Brief Thaw and Chávez’s Death

President Obama initially tried to reset relations:

2009: Obama and Chávez shook hands at the Summit of the Americas. Chávez gifted Obama a book on U.S. imperialism.

But tensions quickly resumed:

2010-2012:

• The U.S. accused Venezuela of supporting Colombian FARC rebels (Chávez denied it)
• Human rights organizations documented increasing authoritarianism under Chávez
• Economic problems emerged as oil prices fluctuated and nationalized industries struggled

March 2013: Hugo Chávez died of cancer.

His successor, Nicolás Maduro, lacked Chávez’s charisma but inherited his ideology—and the U.S. relationship was about to get much worse.

Part 3: The Maduro Era (2013-2024) - From Bad to Catastrophic

2013-2014: Maduro Consolidates Power Amid Economic Crisis

Nicolás Maduro won a narrow election victory in 2013, but opposition groups disputed the results.

Within a year, Venezuela faced:

• Massive inflation (prices rising 50%+ annually)
• Food and medicine shortages
• Widespread protests demanding Maduro’s resignation

The U.S. blamed: Maduro’s economic mismanagement, corruption, and socialist policies destroyed the economy.

Maduro blamed: U.S. economic warfare, CIA sabotage, and sanctions strangled Venezuela’s economy.

What actually happened: Venezuela’s economy collapsed due to a combination of:

• Falling oil prices (Venezuela depends on oil for 95% of export revenue)
• Corruption and mismanagement (state-owned enterprises were inefficient and corrupt)
• Price controls and expropriations that discouraged investment and production
• U.S. sanctions that restricted Venezuela’s access to international finance (starting in 2014)

Both sides bear responsibility.

2014-2015: The First U.S. Sanctions

In 2014-2015, the Obama administration imposed targeted sanctions on Venezuelan officials accused of human rights violations and corruption.

Then, in March 2015, President Obama issued an executive order declaring Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States.”

This was a political earthquake.

From the U.S. perspective: This was standard legal language required to impose sanctions—it didn’t mean Venezuela was actually going to invade the U.S.

From Venezuela’s perspective: Declaring a small country with a struggling economy a “threat” to the world’s superpower was absurd and revealed U.S. intentions to justify intervention.

Latin American nations—even those critical of Maduro—condemned the declaration as overreach.

2017-2018: Crisis Deepens—Mass Migration Begins

By 2017-2018, Venezuela was in full economic collapse:

• Hyperinflation exceeded 1,000,000% annually
• Hospitals ran out of medicine (infant mortality soared)
• Food scarcity led to widespread malnutrition
• Over 5 million Venezuelans fled the country (the largest migration crisis in Latin American history)

Massive protests erupted in 2017, met with violent crackdowns by security forces.

The U.S. response: President Trump imposed broader sanctions, including restrictions on Venezuela’s oil sector and financial transactions. Trump stated he wouldn’t rule out “military options” if necessary.

Maduro’s response: He accused the U.S. of trying to assassinate him, pointed to U.S. sanctions as the cause of Venezuela’s suffering, and consolidated power by creating a Constituent Assembly that bypassed the opposition-controlled National Assembly.

2019: The Guaidó Crisis—Two Presidents, Zero Resolution

In January 2019, the crisis reached a new peak:

What happened:

• Maduro was inaugurated for a second term after disputed elections
• Opposition leader Juan Guaidó, head of the National Assembly, declared himself interim president under constitutional provisions
• The United States and over 50 nations recognized Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate president
• Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, and Turkey supported Maduro

For months, Venezuela had two presidents:

• Maduro controlled the military and government
• Guaidó had international recognition but no actual power

The U.S. imposed sweeping oil sanctions, aiming to starve Maduro’s government of revenue and force him from power.

From the U.S. perspective: Supporting Guaidó upheld democratic principles and pressured an illegitimate dictator.

From Maduro’s perspective: The U.S. was attempting regime change by recognizing an unelected opposition figure as president.

The result: Guaidó’s movement failed. Maduro remained in power. The economy worsened. Sanctions intensified suffering for ordinary Venezuelans.

The Human Cost of Sanctions

A 2019 study estimated that U.S. sanctions contributed to 40,000 deaths in 2017-2018 by restricting access to food and medicine.

A 2020 analysis suggested sanctions-related deaths could have reached 100,000 by 2020 due to reduced healthcare imports.

These figures are disputed:

• Critics of sanctions argue they constitute collective punishment of Venezuelan civilians
• Supporters of sanctions argue Maduro’s mismanagement is primarily responsible, and sanctions are necessary to pressure regime change

The uncomfortable truth: Sanctions harmed ordinary Venezuelans more than Maduro’s inner circle, who maintained access to resources through corruption and black markets.

Part 4: Trump’s Second Term (2025-2026) - Escalation to Military Action

2024 Election: Another Disputed Victory

In July 2024, Maduro claimed victory in presidential elections with approximately 51% of the vote.

But:

• The opposition claimed Edmundo González won with over 60%
• Independent observers cited widespread fraud
• The government refused to release precinct-level vote tallies
• International bodies condemned the election as illegitimate

The U.S. and many Latin American nations rejected the results.

January 2025: Trump Returns—Policy Hardens Immediately

Donald Trump’s second presidency began in January 2025 with a hardline Venezuela policy:

February 2025:

• Designated Venezuelan gangs Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization
• Designated Cartel of the Suns (a narco-trafficking network allegedly involving Venezuelan military and government officials) as a terrorist organization
• Imposed sanctions on Venezuelan officials

March 2025:

• Increased the bounty on Maduro to $50 million (up from $15 million)

September 2025: The U.S. launched Operation Southern Spear—military strikes on boats in international waters allegedly used for drug trafficking.

Results:

• Over 115 people killed in U.S. airstrikes over several months
• Venezuela condemned the strikes as violations of sovereignty
• The UN criticized the operations as lacking international legal basis

October-December 2025:

• U.S. forces seized Venezuelan oil tankers
• CIA conducted covert strikes on suspected drug facilities
• Venezuela expelled remaining U.S. diplomats

January 3, 2026: Operation Absolute Resolve

On January 3, 2026, the U.S. executed its most dramatic action:

Operation Absolute Resolve:

• U.S. airstrikes targeted Venezuelan military infrastructure
• Special forces captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores
• Both were extradited to New York to face narco-terrorism charges
• Maduro pleaded not guilty in federal court

Trump’s justification:

• Protecting Americans from drug trafficking
• Securing access to Venezuelan oil
• Removing a dictator threatening regional stability

Venezuela’s response:

• Acting President Delcy Rodríguez (Maduro’s vice president) condemned the action as “kidnapping and invasion”
• Declared a state of emergency
• Called for international condemnation
• The UN and several nations condemned the operation as a breach of sovereignty

Legal questions:

• The U.S. cited anti-narcotics laws and protection of national interests
• Critics argue it violated international law prohibiting forcible regime change
• The UN Charter prohibits use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council approval

Part 5: Both Perspectives—Who’s Right?

Let’s be honest about what each side gets right and wrong.

The Venezuelan Perspective: Legitimate Grievances

What Venezuela gets right:

1. The U.S. has a history of intervention in Latin America

This is historical fact. The U.S. has:

• Overthrown democratically elected governments (Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973)
• Supported brutal dictators (Pinochet, Somoza, Pérez Jiménez)
• Invaded countries (Panama 1989, Grenada 1983, Dominican Republic 1965)
• Conducted covert operations (Bay of Pigs, Nicaragua Contras)

When Venezuelans fear U.S. intervention, they’re not paranoid—they’re historically informed.

2. U.S. sanctions harmed ordinary Venezuelans

The economic sanctions—especially oil sector sanctions—made Venezuela’s economic collapse worse. Hospitals couldn’t import medicine. Food became scarce. Inflation spiraled.

While Maduro’s policies caused the initial crisis, U.S. sanctions intensified civilian suffering.

3. Oil is a major factor

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. American interest in Venezuela is not purely humanitarian—it’s also strategic and economic.

The U.S. has a track record of regime change in oil-rich nations (Iraq, Libya). Venezuelan suspicions about American motives are rational.

What Venezuela gets wrong:

1. Blaming everything on the U.S.

Venezuela’s economic collapse was primarily caused by:

• Corruption (billions stolen by government officials)
• Mismanagement (nationalized industries were inefficient and corrupt)
• Price controls that created shortages
• Dependence on oil without economic diversification
• Authoritarian policies that drove away investment

The U.S. didn’t cause these problems—Maduro’s government did.

2. Rejecting democratic accountability

Maduro’s government:

• Suppressed opposition
• Jailed political opponents
• Controlled the judiciary
• Manipulated elections
• Censored media

These are not defensive actions against U.S. aggression—they’re authoritarian tactics to maintain power.

3. The narco-trafficking allegations

There is credible evidence linking Venezuelan officials to drug trafficking:

• High-ranking military officers have been indicted in U.S. courts
• The Cartel of the Suns operates with government protection
• Venezuela became a major cocaine transit route under Maduro

While the extent of Maduro’s personal involvement is debated, the narco-state allegations are not baseless.

The U.S. Perspective: Legitimate Concerns

What the U.S. gets right:

1. Maduro is an authoritarian

Maduro’s government has:

• Rigged elections
• Imprisoned dissidents
• Violently suppressed protests
• Controlled the judiciary
• Created a humanitarian crisis through mismanagement

These are documented facts, not American propaganda.

2. Venezuela is a drug trafficking hub

Venezuela has become a major route for cocaine from Colombia to the U.S. and Europe. Senior Venezuelan officials have been credibly linked to trafficking networks.

U.S. concerns about narco-trafficking are legitimate.

3. Regional instability

Over 7 million Venezuelans have fled, creating migration crises in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and beyond. This destabilizes the region and affects U.S. interests.

What the U.S. gets wrong:

1. Sanctions hurt civilians more than Maduro

While intended to pressure Maduro, sanctions:

• Restricted medicine imports (causing preventable deaths)
• Worsened hunger (malnutrition increased)
• Collapsed the economy (harming ordinary workers)

Maduro’s inner circle remained wealthy while ordinary Venezuelans suffered.

2. Recognizing Guaidó backfired

The U.S. bet on Guaidó, but he failed to gain control. This:

• Emboldened Maduro (showing he could withstand U.S. pressure)
• Undermined U.S. credibility (backing a leader with no actual power)
• Prolonged the crisis (by creating political stalemate)

3. Military intervention violates international law

Operation Absolute Resolve—capturing a sitting president and extraditing him to face charges—sets a dangerous precedent:

• No UN authorization was obtained
• No imminent threat to the U.S. existed
• International law prohibits forcible regime change

Even if Maduro is guilty of crimes, the method of his capture undermines international legal norms.

Part 6: The Whole Truth—It’s Complicated

Here’s the reality most people don’t want to hear: Both sides have legitimate grievances, and both have acted in ways that worsened the crisis.

What We Know for Certain

Verified facts:

1. The U.S. has intervened in Latin America for over a century, often prioritizing economic and strategic interests over democracy and human rights.

2. Venezuela’s government under Chávez and Maduro became increasingly authoritarian, suppressing opposition and mismanaging the economy.

3. U.S. sanctions contributed to humanitarian suffering in Venezuela, though the economic crisis began before sanctions were imposed.

4. Credible evidence links Venezuelan officials to drug trafficking, though the extent of Maduro’s personal involvement remains disputed in court.

5. Operation Absolute Resolve violated international legal norms, regardless of Maduro’s alleged crimes.

6. Oil has always been central to this relationship—both as an economic partnership and a source of conflict.

What We Don’t Know

Unresolved questions:

1. Did the U.S. actively orchestrate the 2002 coup, or merely have foreknowledge without direct involvement?

2. How much of Venezuela’s economic collapse is attributable to sanctions versus mismanagement? (Estimates range from 10% to 50%+)

3. What is the full extent of Maduro’s involvement in narco-trafficking? (He is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court)

4. Would Venezuela’s economy have recovered without sanctions, or were Maduro’s policies unsustainable regardless?

The Deeper Pattern: Power, Resources, and Ideology

At its core, the U.S.-Venezuela dispute reflects three fundamental conflicts:

1. Ideological: Capitalism vs. Socialism

The U.S. promotes free-market capitalism and liberal democracy. Chávez and Maduro embraced socialism and criticized U.S.-led globalization.

This is a clash of worldviews about how economies and societies should be organized.

2. Economic: Control of Oil Resources

Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves. The U.S. is the world’s largest oil consumer (historically, now a major producer).

Who controls Venezuelan oil—American companies, the Venezuelan state, or international partners like China and Russia—has geopolitical implications.

3. Geopolitical: Sphere of Influence

The Monroe Doctrine asserted U.S. dominance in the Americas. Venezuela’s alliances with Cuba, Russia, China, and Iran challenge that dominance.

The U.S. views these alliances as threats. Venezuela views them as sovereign choices.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Did the US-Venezuela relationship used to be good?

A: Yes. For over 170 years (1821-1998), U.S.-Venezuela relations were mostly positive, characterized by economic cooperation, especially in oil trade. Venezuela was one of the top oil suppliers to the U.S., and bilateral trade reached $40 billion annually by the 1990s. The relationship only soured after Hugo Chávez’s election in 1998.

Q: Why did Hugo Chávez oppose the United States?

A: Chávez viewed the U.S. as an imperialist power that had historically exploited Latin America—supporting dictators, overthrowing governments, and extracting resources while keeping the region poor. He believed Venezuela needed to assert sovereignty over its oil and reject U.S. influence. The 2002 coup attempt, which Chávez believed the U.S. supported, hardened his opposition.

Q: Are US sanctions responsible for Venezuela’s economic crisis?

A: Partially, but not entirely. Venezuela’s economic collapse began before major U.S. sanctions (2014-2017) due to falling oil prices, corruption, mismanagement, and failed socialist policies. However, sanctions—especially oil sector sanctions imposed in 2019—worsened the crisis by restricting access to international finance and medicine imports. Estimates suggest sanctions may have caused 40,000-100,000 excess deaths, though these figures are disputed.

Q: Is Maduro actually involved in drug trafficking?

A: Credible evidence exists, but Maduro denies it and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The U.S. Justice Department indicted Maduro in 2020 for narco-terrorism, alleging he collaborated with the Cartel of the Suns and FARC rebels to flood the U.S. with cocaine. Several high-ranking Venezuelan officials have been convicted of trafficking. Maduro pleaded not guilty after his capture in 2026.

Q: Was Operation Absolute Resolve legal under international law?

A: No, according to most international law experts. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The U.S. did not obtain UN approval, and Venezuela posed no imminent military threat. Capturing a sitting head of state and extraditing him sets a dangerous precedent, even if Maduro is guilty of crimes. The U.S. justified the operation under anti-narcotics laws and national security interests.

Q: Who is right—the US or Venezuela?

A: Both have legitimate grievances and both have acted wrongly. The U.S. is correct that Maduro runs an authoritarian regime linked to drug trafficking. Venezuela is correct that U.S. sanctions harmed civilians and that the U.S. has a history of intervention in Latin America. The truth is complex: this is a conflict driven by oil, ideology, power politics, and mutual distrust.

Q: What happens to Venezuela now that Maduro is in custody?

A: Uncertain. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has declared a state of emergency. Venezuela’s government remains loyal to the Bolivarian movement but lacks Maduro’s leadership. The U.S. hopes for a transition to democracy, but Venezuela’s political future depends on internal dynamics, international pressure, and whether Maduro is convicted or acquitted in U.S. courts.

Q: Could this lead to a wider conflict?

A: It’s possible but not likely. Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran condemned Operation Absolute Resolve, but none have military capacity or political will to directly confront the U.S. over Venezuela. The greater risk is regional instability—increased migration, political chaos, and potential for civil conflict within Venezuela.

Conclusion: The Truth Is Uncomfortable for Everyone

The U.S.-Venezuela dispute isn’t a story of heroes and villains. It’s a story of two nations with incompatible ideologies, legitimate grievances, and mutual distrust—shaped by 200 years of history, oil politics, and geopolitical power struggles.

If you only listen to Washington, you’ll believe Maduro is a narco-dictator destroying his country and threatening U.S. security.

If you only listen to Caracas, you’ll believe the U.S. is an imperial power trying to steal Venezuela’s oil and punish a nation that dared to reject American dominance.

The reality: Both narratives contain truth, and both omit inconvenient facts.

What’s undeniable:

• The U.S. has a long history of intervention in Latin America
• Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro became increasingly authoritarian
• U.S. sanctions worsened humanitarian suffering in Venezuela
• Credible evidence links Venezuelan officials to drug trafficking
• Operation Absolute Resolve violated international legal norms
• Oil and geopolitics—not just democracy or human rights—drive U.S. policy

The “whole truth” is this: The U.S.-Venezuela relationship is a case study in how good intentions, economic interests, ideological conflicts, and power politics can create a catastrophic spiral where ordinary people suffer most.

Neither Washington nor Caracas is blameless. And neither propaganda version tells the full story.

Understanding this conflict requires rejecting simplistic narratives and grappling with uncomfortable complexity. That’s the only way to learn from history rather than repeat it.

📚 Want to Dive Deeper?

Download our comprehensive guide to US-Latin America relations and the geopolitics of oil

Download Free PDF Book

---

Disclaimer: This article presents documented historical facts and analysis from multiple perspectives. It is intended for educational purposes. Views expressed are based on verified sources but may be interpreted differently depending on political perspective.