The decisions being made by the Trump administration in the coming weeks regarding Venezuela may constitute a sea change in U.S. policy.
If a more vigorous application of the Monroe Doctrine is in the Trump playbook, it will impact the political landscape in both Venezuela and America, as well as the entire Latin American region, the Middle East, and indeed, the rest of the world.
More Than Meets the Eye
At first glance, Venezuela appears to be just another Latin American socialist basket case. But there’s more than meets the eye in this sad and unnecessary drama. Sure, it resembles the Cuban communist nightmare, with perhaps less organization and more desperation. It also bears a likeness to Nicaragua in the 1980s—almost irretrievably divided, corrupt, and weak democratic institutions in the clutches of militant Marxists.Geopolitical Complications
From a geopolitical as well as a national perspective, Venezuela is a mess. It’s had economic, military and clandestine relationships with Iran, the world’s largest terrorist state, for years. That complicates things. It has also certainly violated U.S.-imposed trade sanctions against Iran, especially since President Donald Trump re-imposed them on Iran’s banking and energy sectors. That in itself poses a challenge to American credibility in the world.Of course, Russia (whose navy is also in the area) and China are also watching to see how the United States responds. Both have military ties to, and investments in, a leftist Venezuela. At the same time, both are on the pointy end of U.S. foreign and trade policies.
A Sharpened Focus: Latin America Policy
But with the United States recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaido as “interim president,” it’s increasingly evident that the Trump administration is laying the groundwork for some kind of U.S. response to the deteriorating situation there. And that response, whatever it may be, looks as if it will be happening sooner than later. There are several reasons why this appears to be the case.On the flip side, Maduro comes out the loser. His denial of aid to his hungry people only reinforces the reality of him as an incompetent, despotic leader of a failed state. In a time of want and deprivation, that’s an increasingly a hard sell, as is his validity as the rightful leader of Venezuela.
There’s little wonder why. As the once-major oil producer and member of OPEC, Venezuela’s rapid fall in oil production has added fuel to the country’s economic meltdown under Maduro’s direction. Apologists say that the avowed socialist easily won re-election in May of 2018 with 5.8 million votes compared to 1.8 million votes for his closest rival.
Testing Presidential Powers Against Adversarial Congress
What will the Trump administration do? What does it want to do? Will Trump be forced to declare another national emergency to carry out foreign policy? More to the point, will Nancy Pelosi’s adversarial Congress challenge his authority?In actuality, Trump has the authority for a short-term intervention. But for extended commitments of U.S. military power, he must get congressional approval. If the current political climate in Congress continues, that’s unlikely to happen.
Short, Intense Burst That Reasserts American Power?
Congressional restraint would, therefore, force Trump’s hand toward a very quick and assertive action on the part of U.S. diplomatic, economic, and perhaps even military power. That would seem to play to the United States’ advantage and to Trump’s personality—not just in Venezuela, but throughout Latin America.As for Trump’s decision-making, it may simply be a matter of refusing to be a prisoner of history. Recalling how much leverage the Soviet Union got out of Cuba—and how much Iran, Russia, and China may yet get out of Maduro—Trump may have already decided to act in a direct way with a predetermined outcome. It wouldn’t be surprising.
Iran: An Asymmetric Adversary
Finally, Trump would be wise to see that the Iranian–Venezuelan partnership isn’t comparable to the Soviet Union-Cuba alliance. The Soviet Union, for all its bad deeds, was largely a symmetrical—if adversarial—relationship. It was a nuclear-armed rational actor. Mutually assured destruction meant something to the Soviets.The Iran–Venezuela axis, on the other hand, is qualitatively different. America’s struggle with the Islamic Republic of Iran is asymmetrical. Iran wants nukes, is trying to get them and will likely use them when it can. Its way of seeing the world is more than ideological, it’s religious. Therefore, it’s also somewhat unpredictable and is much more prone to take risks that may escalate tensions and even lead to some bizarre realization of Islamic eschatology. That makes it a much more dangerous adversary.