In the wake of the dramatic events in Venezuela, a more nuanced picture is coming into focus. The operation that saw U.S. forces launch air strikes and capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was not a broad campaign for regime change or a reckless show of strength. According to analysis by Bryan Brulotte, it was a limited and disciplined mission executed with notable restraint and clear objectives.
A Calibrated Intervention to Avoid State Collapse
The primary success of the operation, as outlined, was its specific outcome: the removal of Maduro without triggering the collapse of the Venezuelan state. The country's armed forces did not splinter. Internal security services remained operational. There was no widespread public uprising, no cascade of institutional failures, and no attempt to dismantle the political architecture that has held power in Caracas for over a decade.
This result suggests a carefully calibrated action designed to enforce accountability while minimizing chaos. Maduro was extracted without sparking a civil war, without significant regional spillover, and without committing to the kind of open-ended military engagement that has historically followed externally imposed political transformations.
Maduro as a Singular Liability and Security Threat
The analysis positions Maduro as a unique liability. His international indictments, isolation, and deep entanglement with narcotics trafficking and systemic corruption had made him an obstacle not only to Venezuela's potential economic recovery but to regional stability. His removal altered the political equation without detonating the state itself.
The limited scope of military action reinforced that this was not an attempt to remake Venezuela by sheer force. There was no campaign to decapitate the entire regime, no systematic dismantling of the armed forces, and no broad assault on internal security institutions. The scale and tempo of the operation were deliberately contained.
Containment, Not Transformation: The Precedent of Panama
This perspective has been sharpened by subsequent remarks from U.S. officials. The stated concern is that Venezuela, which holds the world's largest proven oil reserves, must not become an operational hub for hostile state and non-state actors. Viewed through this lens, Maduro's removal was not merely punitive; it was a containment action against the further criminalization and external capture of a failing state.
A clear historical precedent is cited: the 1989 U.S. operation in Panama to remove Manuel Noriega. That objective was centered on criminal enforcement, not ideological transformation. Noriega was arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned, while Panama's sovereignty endured. The argument follows a similar logic: sovereignty does not confer immunity for state-sanctioned criminal enterprises.
While broader political consequences are inevitable with an intervention of this magnitude, the initial operation, as analyzed, was a measured response to a specific and escalating threat, prioritizing strategic restraint over maximalist ambition.
