Carcasses in Caracas: US 'running' Venezuela is a bad idea, and we've seen that movie before. How it failed in Latin America

Nicolás Maduro is in US custody. In a span of over 48 hours, he went from being president of Venezuela to being extracted from his own capital city Caracas, taken blindfolded—first to a ship and then an aircraft— prep-walked before media and photographed, and 'showcased in the back of an open vehicle in New York, to standing trial in a court in the American city. To much of the shocked world, this is an act of humiliation. President Donald Trump's idea of the US 'running Venezuela' and 'managing' its oil could lead to more deaths, destruction, and chaos. Indignation and hurt to national pride could unite the people of Venezuela, only to bring back another socialist regime after a long guerrilla war. Here is a prognosis, based on expert opinion and the history of US interventions in Latin America.

US involvement in Venezuela: A recipe for disaster?

A deeper involvement of the US—either as an occupier or as manager of the Venezuelan oil or economy—is sure to exacerbate violence and chaos, according to experts. Organisations like the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) have condemned unilateral US military intervention, saying it would undermine a peaceful democratic transition and risk broader regional instability.

The January 3 overnight attack on Venezuela has already raised serious questions about violation of international norms and could provoke prolonged conflict.

There is a view that the drug-trafficking allegations against Maduro—which are cited as the reason for his extraction—are "flimsy" and do not justify intervention. Analysts warned that such pretexts echo past failed policies and could position the US as a "rogue state" in global eyes.

Global reactions underscored this: Many Latin American and world leaders decried the strike on Caracas that culminated in Maduro's detention as violation of international law, predicting resentment and unification of adversaries in Venezuela against the US.

Targeting Maduro selectively ignored other brutal regimes worldwide, suggesting the move is more about power projection and greed for Venezuela's covted oil and natural resources than justice.

Experts noted that Venezuela's alliances with US adversaries like Russia, Iran, China and Cuba could give it external support, complicating any occupation. This could turn into a quagmire for the US, akin to Afghanistan or Iraq.

What could follow: Smooth transition, guerrilla warfare, or a return to socialism?

Fears have been expressed already that any US occupation would likely unite the disparate factions of Venezuelan politics: Chavistas (followers of Hugo Chávez's ideology), nationalists, and even some opposition groups under an anti-imperialist banner.

Venezuela's military, though weakened by economic collapse, is reportedly preparing for asymmetric guerrilla warfare, dispersing units and leveraging armed groups to resist conventional forces. A protracted insurgency is likely, and could cause thousands of deaths, infrastructure destruction, and humanitarian crises.

Occupation of the nation, as the US envisages, could prove practically impossible given Venezuela's vast terrain and impoverished economy despite being oil-rich. The deep-seated Bolivarian socialist legacy under Hugo Chávez would frame any American intervention as colonial theft of resources.

Socialist networks could be mobilised domestically, regionally and globally as seen in rapid pro-Maduro activism by US-based groups following the recent events.

We have been here before: How US interventions in Latin America panned out

The US has a long history of intervening in Latin American countries, ostensibly to promote democracy, combat threats, or secure its economic interests. Most of these caused widespread deaths and long-term instability in the relevant countries. Resentment against the US united local populations against perceived imperialism and new-age colonialism. Resistance to American activities often paved the way for revolutionary or leftist regimes to gain or retake power.

The 1954, a CIA-orchestrated coup in Guatemala ousted democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz. It led to decades of civil war, authoritarian rule, and an estimated 200,000 deaths, much of it fuelled by anti-US sentiment.

US support for the 1973 coup in Chile against the Salvador Allende government installed the Augusto Pinochet regime. The dictator killed thousands and tortured tens of thousands. It sowed seeds of political revolution that eventually shifted the nation back toward progressive governments.

In Nicaragua during the 1980s, the US backed the Contra rebels against the Sandinista government, prolonging a brutal civil war that caused an estimated 30,000 deaths and economic devastation. Despite that, the Sandinistas returned to power democratically in 2006 amid lingering anti-imperialist fervour.

This falls into a familiar pattern seen since the early 20th century. Since Cold War days, US intervened in Cuba, Panama, and other nations under the guise of "strategic denial" or protecting US interests. This often escalated into prolonged conflicts and crises, leading to regional backlash.

US is not a stablising force in Latin America

As one analyst put it, the US actions generated needless resentment in the region and called into question its real commitment to democracy and self-determination, often leading to cycles of instability rather than stability.

Trump's plans for "running" Venezuela would likely follow a similar trajectory. This could set the stage for the resurgence of socialist ideologies popularised by Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez. The future could echo Nicaragua's Sandinista revival or Bolivia's return to MAS rule after US-backed interventions. The cycle of intervention, resistance, and ideological resurgence has been a hallmark of Latin American history and the US role in it. Venezuela's strong anti-Yankee sentiment, amplified by Maduro's alliances, makes this outcome probable.