Venezuela after Trump’s strike: John Bolton vs John Mearsheimer
What this covers
Has President Trump made a historic mistake in Venezuela?
On his new program, Switzerland, Tom Switzer challenges John Bolton and John Mearsheimer on the Trump administration’s move to remove Nicolás Maduro from power. Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, argues the operation is justified if it delivers real regime change. Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago political scientist, warns the intervention makes no strategic sense and risks dangerous precedents.
Is President Trump willing to settle for Maduro 2.0? Does Venezuela mark a break from the post-war liberal order? Will Beijing and Moscow draw lessons for Taiwan and Ukraine? Can Washington control Venezuela’s oil without nation-building? And how does this intervention square with Trump’s promise to avoid foreign entanglements?
Subscribe to Switzerland (for free) and join the conversation.
Tom Switzer is a journalist and broadcaster who has been a prolific commentator on politics and international affairs. His writing and commentary have appeared in outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Australian, and across ABC and Sky News, where he has been a regular presenter and panellist. For 30 years, since 1995, he has worked at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, the Australian Financial Review, The Australian, the London-based Spectator magazine, and the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, which he headed from 2017 to 2025. He is the host of Switzerland, a long-form interview series exploring global politics, modern history, and the ideas shaping the world.
ORNW1Y2XRJZJOUHA
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Trump's removal of Maduro represents a departure from his campaign promises to avoid regime change and nation-building, with Bolton defending the intervention as necessary for hemispheric stability while Mearsheimer argues it is imperial overreach that contradicts Trump's stated 'America First' foreign policy and will likely fail given the historical track record of US interventions.
- Of 18 regime changes during the Cold War, the US produced zero stable liberal democracies; history demonstrates nation-building is a fool's errand
- Trump's own prior criticisms of Iraq and Afghanistan interventions undermine his current Venezuela operation, yet he now pursues similar goals
- The intervention prioritizes oil access and strategic positioning over democratic restoration, undermining the legitimacy of the humanitarian rationale
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
The Monroe Doctrine states that the United States wants to ensure no distant great powers form military alliances with Western Hemisphere countries or move military forces there; it does not justify taking over sovereign states for other reasons like resource access.
“The Monroe Doctrine, which is what this is all about, says that the United States wants to ensure that no distant great powers form a military alliance with any countries in the Western Hemisphere or move military forces into the Western Hemisphere. Distant great powers are supposed to keep out. That makes eminently good sense. But there is no threat at this moment of any distant great power moving into the Western Hemisphere. This is a classic case of imperialism, right? What Trump doesn't like is the fact that Venezuela stands up to him. And furthermore, he wants Venezuela's oil.”
During the Cold War, the United States conducted 18 different regime change operations and did not produce a single stable liberal democracy in any of them.
“Do you realize, Tom, that 18 different times during the Cold War, we uh knocked off regimes? 18 different times and not in one single case did we produce a stable liberal democracy at the end of the process.”
Venezuelan oil infrastructure has been destroyed by the Chavez-Maduro regime, and recovery will take years and billions of dollars in capital investment; therefore, whoever benefits from Venezuelan oil will not be Trump but the next president.
“the Chavez Maduro regime has destroyed the oil infrastructure. And one reason why Trump's talk about oil is uh is kind of a fantasy is that the infrastructure, the the drilling equipment, the piping, storage, transport uh capacities are so degraded that it will take years and billions of dollars of capital investment before any kind of meaningful fix will take place. So whoever is going to benefit from Venezuelan oil, it's not going to be Trump. It's going to be the next president.”
The Chavez-Maduro regime has been in power for 30 years and is a hardcore group of people who will not give up power easily; removing Maduro alone is not sufficient because the rest of the regime remains in place.
“Remember this goes back 30 years now to the time Hugo Chavez staged a coup against the legitimately elected government of Venezuela. Maduro is Chavez's successor. He steals elections himself quite regularly. This is a a hardcore group of people. They've been in power 30 years. They're not going to give it up easily.”
Previous US interventions in Haiti (1915-1934), the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua produced not stable liberal democracies but authoritarian strongmen; Haiti was a shambles when the US went in, when it left, under Papa Doc, and remains a shambles today.
“in Haiti the country was a shambles when we went in and it was a shambles uh when when we left and it was a shambles when Papa Doier was running it. It was a shambles when he and his son were overthrown. I'm sad to say it's a shambles today. We didn't cause it.”
Making Venezuela a client state (where the US controls oil and policy) did not work in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya; this historical pattern suggests it will not work in Venezuela.
“What does it mean to make it a client state? I mean, I'm not sure what that means. Well, uh, you just make them conform to America's expectations on a wide range of issues, such as controlling the oil. That didn't work in Iraq. It didn't work in Afghanistan. It didn't work in Libya. Uh, I mean, we have a rich history of trying to push states around. uh and then when they don't obey us going in and toppling the regime and trying to put in place a democratic regime that's stable and friendly to the United States and it hardly ever works.”
The most powerful political ideology on the planet is nationalism, which is centered on sovereignty and self-determination; no Venezuelan wants the United States running their country or kidnapping their president.
“the most powerful political ideology on the planet is nationalism. And nationalism is all about sovereignty and self-determination. And no Venezuelan wants the United States coming into their country and telling them what their politics should look like, much less kidnapping their president.”
Since Maduro assumed power in 2013, approximately 8 million Venezuelans (around a quarter of the country) have fled, triggering a humanitarian crisis across the Americas; this is why Venezuelans are celebrating his removal.
“since Majuro assumed power in 2013 when he replaced Chavez, I think roughly 8 million Venezuelans, that's around a quarter of the country, John, they have fled and that has just triggered a humanitarian crisis across the Americas. And that's why they're celebrating that Maduro is no longer the leader of Venezuela.”
Democracy is not an export commodity but a do-it-yourself enterprise requiring very special internal circumstances and conditions specific to each country.
“democracy is not an export commodity. It's essentially a do-it-yourself enterprise that requires very special circumstances and conditions”
Humanitarian crises do not justify US military intervention to overthrow regimes; the appropriate response to humanitarian problems is for the affected population to solve them, not for external military powers to engineer regime change.
“I don't dispute that. But what does that mean? That we're supposed to go in topple the regime uh rebuild uh rebuild Venezuela so that it's a peaceful democracy.”
Iraq and Afghanistan were clear disasters, not successes; the US lost in both conflicts after years of intervention, and the idea that they would have succeeded with 'correct execution' is unsupported revisionism.
“Afghanistan and Iraq were disasters. If Trump criticized Bush, he was right on the money. The United States should have never gone into Iraq. And when it went into Afghanistan and knocked off the Taliban, it then should have gotten out of town as quickly as possible and not returned. You want to remember after 20 years in Afghanistan, we left with our tail between our legs.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a fervent Trump supporter, has castigated him on the grounds of the Venezuela operation, and there is evidence that MAGA movement people are upset about it.
“Well, Marie Mar Marjgerie Taylor Green, who was once a fervent supporter of his, has castigated him on exactly these grounds, and there is all sorts of evidence that there are people in MAGA movement uh who are very upset about this.”
Trump has expanded his foreign policy agenda in ways nobody anticipated; in addition to Venezuela, he has conducted bombing campaigns in Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria in recent weeks.
“what's happened here is he's expanded uh he's expanded our foreign policy agendas in way agenda in ways that nobody anticipated. You want to remember it was only a week or so ago that he was bombing Nigeria...not only he's bombing Nigeria, he's bombing uh Somalia. He's bombed Iraq. He's bombed Syria.”
China controls 80 percent of Venezuela's oil exports and views Venezuela's oil reserves—17 percent of proven worldwide reserves, larger than Saudi Arabia or the United States—as a source it wants to control; China will not want this disappear.
“China, just to give an example, which wants oil wherever it can get it, uh, looks at Venezuela's oil reserves, 17% of the proven oil reserves worldwide, bigger than Saudi Arabia, bigger than the United States. China currently buys 80% of Venezuela's export of oil. They're not going to want to see that disappear. They want they want sources that that they control.”
When considering grand strategy and America's global interests across Russia, China, Iran, Middle East, Arctic, and Gaza/Lebanon/Syria, it makes no sense to engage in nation-building in Latin America; this is 'lunacy'.
“when you think about grand strategy, when you think about all of America's interests around the world, does it make sense to get into nation building in Latin America at this point in time when you're trying to deal with Russia? when you're trying to deal with China, when you're worried about what's going on up in the Arctic where both the Russian and the Chinese the Russians and the Chinese are very active and where you're talking about going to war against Iran again and you're worried about shutting down the conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, just think of the list of important issues that we're dealing with and then say to yourself, does it make sense to go to war against Venezuela? or to get into the business of nation building in Venezuela and other countries in Latin America. In my opinion, this is lunacy.”
George W. Bush was correct that the U.S. should have gotten out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible after removing the Taliban, rather than conducting a 20-year occupation that ended in defeat.
“The United States should have never gone into Iraq. And when it went into Afghanistan and knocked off the Taliban, it then should have gotten out of town as quickly as possible and not returned. You want to remember after 20 years in Afghanistan, we left with our tail between our legs.”
The United States has been energy self-sufficient for most of the past decade, making Trump's focus on Venezuelan oil access less necessary for energy security.
“hasn't the United States been energy self reliant [snorts] uh for the best part of a decade?”
Mearsheimer's primary interest is in the balance of power among great powers; the serious threats are countries like China and Russia, not minor powers, and running around the world interfering in the politics of minor powers is a prescription for unending trouble.
“Uh I'm I'm interested mainly in the balance of power among great powers. The serious threats that we should worry about are countries like the Soviet Union, countries like China, and of course Russia as well, although Russia is nowhere near as threatening as China is. But this idea of running around the world and interfering uh in the politics of minor powers that you tell a story to yourself about how threatening they are is just a prescription for unending trouble.”
There are many leaders around the world who are dictators and behave brutally, so the question is whether the US should be in the business of toppling such regimes and installing friendly stable democracies in their place, which the US learned was a 'fool's errand' during the unipolar moment.
“Well, there are lots of leaders around the world who are dictators and behave in brutal fashion. And the question you want to ask yourself is, do you think should be in the business of toppling those regimes and going in there and putting a regime in place uh that doesn't do those nasty things? Uh I thought we learned during the unipolar moment that this is a fool's errand and this is the sort of thing you want to avoid.”
Oil was always a priority for Trump, and he wants to keep gasoline prices low at the pump because this is a significant part of the politics of the US economy that will influence the November elections.
“Well, it was a priority for Trump. As I mentioned in the case of Iraq, oil is always a priority. And uh why? uh because he wants to keep g the price of gasoline at the pump down. This is a big part of the politics of the US economy that will play out in the November elections coming up.”
The British Daily Telegraph, a conservative publication that Bolton writes for, has raised serious doubts about the intervention in an editorial suggesting that focusing on resources violates international norms.
“Okay, sticking with the critics though, uh, and this is an unlikely critic. This is the UK Daily Telegraph. the British newspaper that you contribute calling columns quite frequently. Now they raise serious doubts about this intervention. Let me quote from its editorial and we put this on the screen. Quote, "A war which directly focuses on the resources of a sovereign state in this manner would appear to confirm all the worst suspicions held by nations doing business with Washington."”
Major U.S. and British newspapers (the Guardian, New York Times, Daily Telegraph) are united in characterizing the Venezuela operation as illegal, unprovoked, and a violation of sovereign territorial rights, representing a return to great powers dominating spheres of influence.
“Meanwhile, all the usual suspects, John, like the Guardian newspaper in Britain, the New York Times. Um, no surprises here. They're staunch critics of Donald Trump, but they say that the coup is illegal. It's unprovoked. It violates sovereign territorial rights. This is the counterargument. And all this suggests that might is right and return to great powers dominating spheres of influence.”
If the Trump administration deepens involvement in Venezuela beyond pinprick operations, the MAGA base will begin to revolt because they believe Trump was elected to focus on America first and fix home front problems, not expand foreign policy agenda.
“if it doesn't happen and the more likely outcome I think is that we will get involved uh then the MABA I think will begin to revolt. Uh there's no question that the MAGA base is very upset with him on foreign policy issues because he was going to be an America first president. He was going to focus on the home front. He was going to make America great again and he was going to diminish the importance of foreign policy.”
Charges filed against Maduro will have difficulty succeeding in the court system, and Maduro is not tied to drug cartels as closely as proponents of the operation claim.
“I looked at the um charges against uh uh Maduro that have been filed and uh I think they're going to actually have a tough time uh nailing him in the court system. Uh I don't think he's anywhere near as tied to these uh drug cartels as uh proponents of this operation.”
President Trump campaigned on the promise that he was getting out of the business of regime change and nation-building, having learned from the failures of the unipolar moment.
“when President Trump was campaigning for reelection, he promised us that uh he was getting out of the business of regime change. And of course, once you change regimes, you're then in the business of social engineering. You're in the business of nation building. And President Trump was well aware that we had done that during the unipolar moment uh and that it had been an abysmal failure.”
The critical question about the Venezuela intervention is whether it will work out, and Mearsheimer's assessment is that it is 'highly likely' to fail.
“the question you have to ask yourself is this gonna work out this time? number one. And number two, when you think about grand strategy, when you think about all of America's interests around the world, does it make sense for us now to get involved in social engineering, not only in Venezuela, but maybe in Colombia, Mexico, uh, and Nicaragua as well because President uh, President Trump has been talking in a very, uh, uh, ambitious way. He seems to have an expansive agenda of doing nation building in the Western Hemisphere. So my argument is is this is probably going to fail. It's highly likely.”
By undercutting the legitimate democratic opposition in Venezuela and suggesting the US will deal with the dictatorship to secure oil access, Trump undermines the legitimacy of the claimed humanitarian and democratic rationale for removing Maduro.
“by undercutting the legitimate democratic opposition in uh Venezuela, Trump is seems to be suggesting we'll deal with the dictatorship if we can get our way on oil, which undercuts the very legitimacy of our claim to go in and remove Maduro in the first place.”
Maduro and his regime pose threats to stability in the Western Hemisphere and to the United States directly by harboring Iranians who conduct terrorist activities across the hemisphere, and the US intervention is justified under international law because it acts at the request of the legitimate government—the people who actually won the Venezuelan election.
“the threats that uh Maduro and his regime pose to stability in the Western Hemisphere and to the United States directly, harboring Iranians who are conducting terrorist activities across the hemisphere. And because we are acting at the request of what is the legitimate government, the the people who actually won the election in Venezuela, I think we're well within any reasonable person's understanding of what international law requires.”
Trump cannot 'run the place' without boots on the ground; running a country requires actual military and administrative presence, not just economic coercion.
“it just seems to me it's hard to run the country without being present...How do you run the country from afar? I get the sense from listening to people in the administration talk that they plan to use economic leverage. They plan to uh coersse the Venezuelans who are in charge uh with uh economic threats. Uh I don't think that's sufficient. I think you need boots on the ground. You have to get in there and get your hands dirty.”
The United States goes ballistic when other countries interfere in US elections (2016 Russian interference) based on sovereignty principles, yet violates this same principle when it interferes in other nations' politics; this is hypocritical and weakens US credibility.
“The United States goes ballistic when people say that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. This is unacceptable to the United States. We're a sovereign state. Well, as you know, Tom, what's good for the goose is good for the gam. And if we we think sovereignty is good for us, don't you think that other countries around the world, including minor powers like Venezuela, are going to want to protect their sovereignty? They're not going to want the United States coming in and running their politics.”
The democratic case for removing Maduro belongs to the Venezuelan people, not the United States; if Mearsheimer could snap his fingers to create democracy in Venezuela, he would, but sending US military for social engineering is wrong.
“A democratic case for the Venezuelan people to topple Maduro. Maduro is their problem, not our problem. Right. Let them solve the problem. I regret the fact that there's not democracy in Venezuela. If I could snap my fingers and uh make democracy uh appear in Venezuela, I'd do that. I think it's all for the good. Obviously, I love the fact I live in a liberal democracy. But I don't want to get in the business of sending the United States military into countries like this, like Venezuela, for the purposes of doing social engineering for rectifying legitimate problems that those countries face.”
The United States legal establishment (international lawyers like Geoffrey Robertson) views the Venezuela intervention as internationally illegal, reflecting an orthodox position among international law scholars.
“Okay, and all this comes at a time when so many international lawyers are bleeding about this intervention. Jeffrey Robertson, the Australian prominent uh international lawyer, he's uh written a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald this week slamming Trump. This reflects the orthodoxy amongst international lawyers, isn't it?”
In the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, voters decided by 70-30% in favor of the democratic opposition, but Maduro refused to relinquish power to the opposition candidate, and every credible poll shows support for removing Maduro has only grown in Venezuela.
“What about the democratic will of the Venezuelan people themselves? Remember in the 2024 presidential election, John, they voted decisively, by most accounts, 70 to 30% in favor of the Democratic opposition. Maduro refused to relinquish power to the opposition candidate.”
The Bay of Pigs intervention did not provoke Castro to get closer to the Soviet Union; Castro was on a mission to do that from the beginning.
“I don't think the Bay of Pigs provoked Castro to get closer to the Soviet Union. I think he was on a mission to do that uh really from the beginning.”
Nicaragua may have been worse off if the US had not remained engaged longer, as it is now ruled by communist dictator Daniel Ortega, suggesting insufficient duration of commitment may have enabled worse outcomes.
“Nicaragua maybe we should have stayed longer and then it wouldn't be ruled by the communist dictator Danny Ortega who's still in power there today.”
The 'troika of tyranny' in the Western Hemisphere—Maduro's Venezuela, post-Castro Cuba, and Ortega's Nicaragua—are leaning against each other and propped up by each other, suggesting they form an interconnected authoritarian bloc.
“I think it is fair to say that this troa of tyranny in the western hemisphere, Maduro, the Maduro regime in Venezuela, the post Castro regime in Cuba and the Ortegas in Nicaragua are leaning against each other. They're propped up uh by by all of them.”
The Venezuela operation may look like a success today (no US casualties, Maduro removed) but this mirrors George W. Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' moment; judgment should be suspended until outcomes appear in weeks or months.
“We're in a similar situation here. It just happened and it looks like Trump has pulled off a great triumph. Uh no American casualties. We went in uh we pulled Maduro out. uh and uh he's patting himself on the back and everybody's saying rah rah rah. Uh that's today, but let's see what this situation looks like in a couple weeks or a couple months.”
China and Taiwan's circumstances differ from Russia and Ukraine (and from Venezuela), because Taiwan's people reject the claim that Taiwan is a sovereign part of China, and Taiwan itself poses no threat to Chinese security, whereas Venezuela harbored threats to the US.
“the circumstances are completely different. the the argument that the Chinese would make is that Taiwan is a sovereign part of China. The the people of Taiwan beg to disagree with that and uh uh and and so the circumstances there the Chinese do not have the approval of the legitimate government of Taiwan asking them to intervene. Uh it's the Chinese who are threatening the stability of Taiwan, not vice versa.”
If the Venezuelan regime falls, Cuba is in trouble not because of military action by the United States but because of the people in Cuba and millions of Cuban-Americans in Florida in daily contact with relatives, suggesting popular pressure rather than intervention causes regime change.
“if if the regime in Venezuela well and truly falls, which it has not yet, yeah, I think I think Cuba is in trouble. And I think uh it's not because of military action by the United States. It will be because of the people in Cuba, not to mention millions of Cubanameans in Florida who are in daily touch with their friends and relatives Cuba.”
The Venezuelan opposition was prepared to assume control of government in 2018-2019 after fragmenting the Maduro regime at the top and arranging military defections, but these preparations may have been lost with the current intervention's approach.
“in 2018 and 2019, the opposition worked to fragment the Maduro regime at the top and they thought they had a number of deals worked out where military leaders would defect and and they would be able to take power. that that didn't work, but they were ready to assume control of the government. Now, we don't know whether Trump has followed through on that. We don't we don't know uh whether those contacts were made, but I think that uh to throw the opposition under the bus uh means that you're potentially going to engage in transactions that strengthen the hold of the regime uh in in Venezuela.”
Trump uses 'the most outrageous thing you can' as negotiating tactic—threatening invasion of Greenland, Colombia, etc.—with expectation that getting 30 percent of what he asks for counts as a great coup; people should keep perspective about his rhetorical excess.
“he is in full Trump flow here of uh as he described it in the art of the deal. You say the most outrageous thing you can and and people say, 'My god, he's going to invade Greenland.' and uh and they say, 'Well, what do we do to stop it?' And you know, in Trump's dealmaking, if he if he says uh the most outrageous thing and gets 30% of what he asked for, he considers it himself a great coup. Uh I I think people should uh should try and keep a grip on things.”
Trump said 'We're going to run Venezuela for a while,' but Marco Rubio immediately disavowed this on Sunday talk shows saying 'No, we're just going to talk about policy,' revealing internal White House disagreement about the scope of the intervention.
“on Saturday, the president said, 'We're going to run Venezuela for a while.' Something that uh on Sunday, Marco Rubio ran away from on the Sunday talk show saying, 'No, we're just going to talk about policy.'”
The Venezuelan regime is attempting to buy time in negotiations by showing openness while ensuring military loyalty, gangs remain cooperative, and maintaining support from China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba.
“I think they are trying to show an openness to negotiate in order to buy time. They need to be sure that they've got their ducks in a row. That the army, the military forces remain loyal, that the collectivos, these gangs of motorcycle riding thugs that they use to intimidate the civilian population remain loyal. They want to level set with China, Russia, uh, uh, Iran, and Cuba to make sure they've got their support.”
Most MAGA movement people are holding their fire regarding the Venezuela operation because they believe (as Mearsheimer suggested it might be) a pinprick operation that doesn't require deep involvement in nation-building.
“But I think most people in the MAGA movement are holding their fire for the reasons that you were alluding to earlier when you said that this probably will be a pin prick operation. uh and that he'll work out a deal that doesn't require us to get deeply involved in Venezuela and certainly not deeply involved in nation building and therefore they can state President Trump.”
Marco Rubio has been given responsibility ('viceroy' status) to make Trump's Venezuela policy work, indicating significant influence over the decision to intervene and remove Maduro.
“Now Rubio has the dubious distinction of being as we now call him the viceroy of Venezuela. He's got to try and make this mishmash of a policy work.”
There is no clear succession plan; the Trump administration has not indicated whom it will hand Venezuela over to—not the opposition (whom Trump has dissed), not the existing regime.
“okay, we're going to run it for a while, but who's going to then run it? Who are we going to turn it over to? uh uh the opposition. There doesn't seem to be anybody in the opposition that the administration is attracted to. To my amazement, President Trump has dissed uh Mashado uh this woman who won the Nobel Prize who I think most people thought we would go to great lengths to install as the replacement for Maduro, but he has nothing good to say about Machado.”
Venezuela has become 'the Afghanistan of South America' by providing opportunities for US adversaries to use Venezuelan territory for their advantage.
“what the Maduro regime has done over the past 15 years is given opportunities for adversaries of the US and stability in the hemisphere to come in and use their territory to their advantage. It's sort of like in that in that sense the Afghanistan of South America.”
If Trump invades Greenland, it would be the end of the NATO alliance.
“if Trump did invade Greenland, it's the end of the NATO alliance.”
The current Colombian president was democratically elected and his government does not threaten the United States; while there are issues with narcotics trafficking, Colombia's democratic legitimacy and US interests there argue against intervention despite Trump's tough rhetoric.
“the uh I'm not a big fan of the current president of Colombia but he was democratically elected. The government of Colombia does not threaten the United States. We have important assets there. We have worked with the government against illegal narcotics trafficking. Not as effectively with this one as with past ones.”
Panama is a much smaller country than Venezuela with less serious problems; therefore, the Panama precedent cannot be reliably extended to Venezuela, and we do not currently have boots on the ground in Venezuela.
“Not really. Uh and as many people have pointed out, Panama is a much smaller country than Venezuela is. And the problems that we faced in Panama were much less than the problems that we would face in Venezuela uh if we really went in there. People want to remember that we do not have boots on the ground in Venezuela.”
While oil availability is a legitimate political concern, it is not a sufficient national security argument on its own for intervention; there are larger strategic issues at stake that justify the intervention.
“But but the idea that uh that that that somehow that is uh a legitimate motivating factor on its own uh is is just is not part of any national security argument that that really is important. there are bigger issues at play.”
Trump has used military force seven times prior to Venezuela, and in every instance the operation has been a 'pin prick'—limited, carefully calibrated, and not involving deep military commitment or nation building.
“You know, I've pointed out uh that if you look at uh the number of times uh Trump has used military force uh up until this uh incursion into uh Venezuela, you can count seven instances where he's used military force against other countries. Seven instances. That's quite remarkable. But every one of them has been a pin prick. He is very careful.”
The Wall Street Journal editorialized that Trump owes George W. Bush an apology because the Journal now views the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions as justified, and Trump's Venezuela operation demonstrates this.
“The president owes George W. Bush an apology for his expost facto criticism of US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Trump is pursuing the Bush freedom agenda, at least in the Western Hemisphere. Are we all neocons?”
The Panama operation (1989-1990 removal of Noriega) was not an analogous success case; Mearsheimer opposed it as well, and was not convinced it produced a stable democracy.
“No, I don't. Uh and I wasn't in favor of that one either. I I'm I'm I'm interested mainly in the balance of power among great powers. The serious threats that we should worry about are countries like the Soviet Union, countries like China, and of course Russia as well, although Russia is nowhere near as threatening as China is.”
If there is evidence that Venezuela is forming a military alliance with Russia or China, the U.S. would be justified in intervening, but no such evidence exists currently.
“But what we're talking about here is a situation where Venezuela is not a serious threat to the United States and it's not a serious threat to the Monroe Doctrine. We just want their oil. But aren't Russia and China, this is what the administration would say to you, they they're moving to secure control over Arctic sea roots and precious minerals and that could threaten US interests.”