As the United States simultaneously steps up military power and diplomatic pressure targeting Venezuela's regime, questions are growing about what the United States ultimately seeks. With U.S. Navy force movements and expanded training with neighboring countries, some observers say it may be "preparing for military intervention." In this context, a recent analysis said the situation in Venezuela resembles the U.S. Panama operation in 1989.
On the 18th (local time), Brett McGurk, a former senior White House national security official and a CNN analyst, explained the essence of the Venezuela crisis in a column by examining which historical precedent the U.S. goals and modes of intervention most resemble. He said, "The current situation in Venezuela is nothing like the Iraq invasion; it is more similar to the Panama operation."
McGurk, citing his past experience stationed in Baghdad, stressed that the use of military force requires clear and achievable objectives. He said, "U.S. forces are moving around Venezuela, but it is premature to interpret this as an Iraq-style intervention."
He analyzed that the nature of Nicolás Maduro's regime is similar to that of Panama's dictator Manuel Noriega. Maduro faces potential criminal indictment in the United States on drug terrorism and corruption charges, and the U.S. government has offered a reward of up to $50 million to anyone who cooperates in his capture and extradition. The Maduro regime has nullified the opposition's election victory, violently suppressed protesters, and effectively taken U.S. citizens hostage to use as diplomatic leverage.
The United States has recently deployed 15% of its naval forces to waters around Venezuela and increased its military presence by conducting Marine Corps ground training near the neighboring island nation of Trinidad and Tobago. But the U.S. government has not clarified its official goals. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described the purpose of the operation only as "homeland defense and response to drug terrorism," fueling debate over the extent of its political and military objectives.
The Panama case was an operation in which the United States removed the Noriega regime in two weeks and succeeded in transferring power to a democratic government. But Venezuela's territory is more than 10 times larger than Panama's, its local power structure is more complex, and the potential existence of what Maduro claims are "millions of militia" adds a variable, leading some to say that, unlike then, civil war cannot be ruled out. In addition, Russia and China support the Maduro regime, a major difference from Panama.
Even so, McGurk argued, "Ousting Maduro aligns with the interests of both the United States and the people of Venezuela." Since the rule of Chávez and Maduro, Venezuela's per capita income has fallen by more than 70%, a massive refugee exodus has continued, and state functions have collapsed. In credible polls, about 75% of the public said they want a change of government.
However, he assessed that a military regime change is unlikely to be preferred by the Trump administration. Instead, he projected that the following could serve as realistic pressure cards: ▲ removing core drug cartel forces aligned with Maduro ▲ withdrawing territorial claims against neighboring Guyana ▲ forcing a new election with international monitoring ▲ encouraging Maduro's exile abroad (such as to Russia).
McGurk said, "In Venezuela, the U.S. goal is to achieve maximum effect with minimum force, as in Panama," adding, "Military power can be a means to increase leverage, not the ultimate intervention." He concluded by saying, "Above all, public debate in Congress is necessary, but Washington's current political paralysis is blocking even that process."