Listen to “Venezuela is Wait and See” on Spreaker.
U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in the early hours of Saturday morning, acting on orders from President Donald Trump. Later that day, speaking from Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump said the United States would “run Venezuela.” By Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio walked that back on the talk shows, saying instead that the U.S. would pursue change through an oil blockade.
The only certainty in all of this? The situation is a classic wait and see.
Maduro is evil. Full stop. His ouster is good for Venezuelans and for anyone who abhors dictatorship and socialism. That part is easy.
But was it America’s job to remove him – especially during a presidency defined by “America First?” Is this move truly America First? Most Republicans say yes. Democrats are quick to say no and have heavily criticized the decision.
Welcome to politics.
Republicans support their president – partly out of agreement, partly because dissent has proven costly, and partly because politics is tribal: us versus them. Democrats, for their part, were always going to condemn the move. They need an argument to campaign on if this goes sideways.
That’s not a pejorative take on either party. It’s simply the game of politics – a game as old as any ever played.
Still, legitimate questions abound.
Should Congress – or at least the Gang of Eight – have been consulted before taking action against a sovereign nation and capturing its leader? The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. Then again, George H.W. Bush made a similar call with Manuel Noriega – one can make a case Maduro is worse than Noriega, so why not use the precedent as established? Or are we here because Congress continues to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities?
Is the president being fully truthful with the American people? He said the U.S. would run Venezuela. A day later, his secretary of state said the plan was pressure through an oil blockade. If Maduro is gone but Delcy Rodríguez remains, is that meaningful change – or just rearranging pieces on the board? Isn’t she just as bad? Can real reform happen without nation-building or a true regime change? Both of which have proven costly to the U.S. and yielded limited success in the past.
And is this really about Venezuela – or about China, Russia, and other U.S. adversaries? Is the president sending a message, reasserting control over the Western Hemisphere, and demonstrating resolve through action?
There’s also the oil question. Venezuela nationalized American oil assets in the 1970s. Exxon has still not been fully compensated, despite international rulings. Chevron continues to operate there, but will major U.S. oil companies really rush back to reinvest and rebuild, as Trump suggested, given the uncertainty ahead? What stops Rodríguez from repeating Maduro’s playbook?
As for drugs, there are bigger fish to fry – starting with Mexico.
There are so many questions, so many angles, and so many players that anyone claiming certainty – whether an average American, a think-tank analyst, a member of Congress, or a national editorial board issuing its latest piece on the matter – is almost certainly overstating their grasp of events.
The reality is simple: we’re in it now. Maduro’s removal alone may be too little to produce meaningful change. Can we stop there if nothing changes? The path forward remains unclear. President Trump can press ahead aggressively or take a more limited, stunted approach. Either way, it is far too early to know how this ends.
Uncertainty is the only certainty.
Shakespeare had it right:
“If you can look into the seeds of time,
And say which grain will grow and which will not,
Speak then to me.”
No mortal can do that. Nobody knows how this ends. Anyone who claims otherwise is either foolish or lying.