By Aidan J. Simardone – Nov 11, 2025
As the US recalibrates from global hegemony to hemispheric dominance, Venezuela becomes the battleground for an empire in decline – but also for the Global South’s defiance.
War with Venezuela seems all but imminent. Off its coast, the US has deployed the largest military build-up in the region since 1994. Since Washington’s animosity began in 2002, when the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez took office, the question is not “why” but “why now?”
With unipolarity in tatters and Eurasian resistance surging, Washington’s last viable project is the consolidation of its so-called “backyard.” Even hawkish institutions realize the US can no longer take on China and Russia. Failing global domination, Plan B is to control the Western Hemisphere. This grand strategy has only accelerated under US President Donald Trump’s second term.
To consolidate its control, the US needs Venezuela, which has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Standing in its way is an anti-imperialist government. With economic coercion failing to topple it, the only option is military force. But this could backfire, with regional allies turning against the US and Venezuela getting help from Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran. Trump will then have to look elsewhere to secure resources.
The rise and fall of unipolarity
The collapse of the Soviet Union handed the US unprecedented global dominance. In its unipolar prime, Washington launched military campaigns to assert its supremacy – Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, Yugoslavia was fractured, and Haiti’s pro-western government was reinstalled.
Feeling confident, President George W. Bush began the ‘War on Terror’ to consolidate control over West and Central Asia. Instead of a quick victory, indigenous resistance kept the US bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade. By 2018, it was recognized that the dream of controlling the world’s energy reserves had failed.
Meanwhile, China harnessed US corporate offshoring to supercharge its economy. Russia crushed a foreign-backed insurgency in Chechnya, reasserted influence in its near abroad, and obstructed NATO expansion in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.
Rather than adjust to multipolarity, Washington doubled down. It expanded NATO toward Russia’s borders, backed color revolutions in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, sent warships to the South China Sea, sanctioned adversaries, and propped up its allies in West Asia – supporting Israel, embargoing Iran, and occupying parts of Syria and Iraq.
Recalculating grand strategy
These efforts largely failed. Russia expanded its control of Ukraine and survived sanctions. The trade war with China made little impact. Instead, US sanctions led countries to abandon the dollar. In West Asia, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was overthrown, but the genocide in Gaza created a global backlash (including in the west) against Israel, and increased popularity and support for the resistance.
As International Advisor for the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Fadi Lama, wrote in The Cradle in 2022:
“In view of the growing global influence of the RIC [Russia, Iran, China], the only feasible strategy for the west would be to ‘terminate the competition’ by splitting the world.”
Since then, this policy has accelerated under Trump. Instead of America guaranteeing Europe’s security, he outsourced it to the EU and individual NATO members (and recently announced the removal of US troops from Romania).
To be sure, the Trump administration still includes neoconservative hawks. Trump sent billions in military aid to Israel and Ukraine, imposed further sanctions on Russia, and increased operations in the Red Sea – including drone strikes in Somalia. But Trump has never followed the standard neoconservative plan.
Initially, his second term began with a pivot to the Asia Pacific. Trump hoped that ending the war in Ukraine would bring Russia back into the western fold, driving a wedge with China. But as Russia continues to advance in Ukraine, it sees no reason to end the war. Facing sanctions, Russia has increased cooperation with Beijing.
Trump’s trade war escalated, with tariffs on Chinese goods reaching 145 percent. Beijing retaliated with tighter control over critical minerals. The result? Washington quietly dropped tariffs to 47 percent. Even Taiwan – once a hot-button issue – has faded from the White House agenda.
A new Monroe Doctrine
Trump’s foreign policy has been mischaracterized as “isolationist” or “peace-seeking.” It is neither. Failing to counter China and Russia, the real goal is to turn the Americas – from Patagonia to Greenland – into Washington’s sphere of influence.
This is a continuation of the Monroe Doctrine, which has dictated for 200 years that the Western Hemisphere is the responsibility of the US. What’s different is Trump’s blatant call for annexation and acceleration of military force. Trump started off his second term calling for the annexation of Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Dismissed as lunacy by liberal pundits, the proposals nonetheless delivered results.
Canada increased border militarization. Denmark, under pressure, ramped up its troop presence in Greenland – effectively boxing out Chinese access to critical resources. Panama scrapped its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) contracts with China and revoked a canal deal with Hong Kong-based CK Hutchinson.
After much pressure, Mexico agreed to raise tariffs on China. Argentina’s receipt of $40 billion helped its pro-western government win the recent election. Likewise, Costa Rica and Guatemala agreed to accept deportees in return for reduced tariffs.
One by one, regional states are being brought back into the imperial fold – through bribery, blackmail, and battlefield threats.
https://OrinocoTribune.com/us-think-tank-advises-pentagon-on-attacking-venezuela/
Venezuela versus hegemony
But Venezuela is the exception. Since 2002, Caracas has resisted regime-change operations, sanctions, and coup attempts.
Initially, these seemed to work. Countries could not trade with Venezuela since the US would cut off access to financial institutions. As a result, GDP contracted 74 percent, inflation reached two million percent, and 7.9 million people fled Venezuela. It seemed all the US had to do was wait for the government to collapse – but it didn’t.
The economy is now one of the fastest growing, people are returning, and inflation is somewhat under control. This is largely thanks to the resilience of the Venezuelan people. But it is also thanks to China, which has poured $60 billion – greater than half the value of Venezuela’s economy. Through this investment, China helps Venezuela export goods to circumvent sanctions. Russia has also helped, with billions worth of military equipment and cooperation on intelligence. Iran, too, has also stood by Caracas, supplying the besieged South American country with several million barrels of crude oil.
This poses two problems for the US. First, Venezuela’s resilience could inspire other countries. Already, left-leaning governments have been elected in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, and Nicaragua. Mass protests in Ecuador and Peru could see these countries joining through the ballot or the bullet. Secondly, sanctions on Venezuela have backfired, providing a foothold for China and Russia in America’s “backyard.”
The logic of escalation
With economic warfare exhausted, military options are now on the table. The US has moved major naval assets to the Caribbean – its most aggressive deployment since 1994. As expected under the new grand strategy, some military assets were moved from West Asia and the Pacific to the coast of Venezuela. As an act of intimidation, the US has struck boats it accuses of drug trafficking.
Venezuela is not taking the bait. It has invited Russia to deploy air defense systems and to provide Wagner military trainers. There are reports of discussions about hypersonic missiles. Regional resistance is also building. Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers’ Movement – 1.5 million strong – has pledged solidarity brigades. Mexico and Colombia have condemned US actions. Caracas has armed local militias in preparation for urban warfare.
Even if the Venezuelan army is overwhelmed, it has provided weapons to citizen militias to carry on the fight. At best, intervention would be like the Iraq War: prolonged, unpopular, and ultimately unwinnable.
The last stage of empire
Trump narrowed America’s grand strategy, from global dominance, to pivoting to the Asia Pacific, and now securing the Western Hemisphere. But with Venezuela in the way, even this project is faltering. If Venezuela survives – militarily and economically – then the last illusion of US dominance will be shattered.
The empire, then, may settle for partial colonial control: limited to a few offshore resource zones, with constant warfare to extract raw materials.
Already, there are signs that the US may shift attention elsewhere. Trump has accused Nigeria of committing “genocide against Christians” – a familiar pretext for intervention. Nigeria, riven by ethnic and religious fault lines, could be Balkanized – its oil-rich south separated from the Muslim-majority north.
But Nigeria is also no easy target. It would require massive resources and cost, and the humanitarian toll would be staggering. Yet in the eyes of a desperate empire, it may be worth the gamble.
Strategy in flux
The current US grand strategy is in transition. Neoconservatives are trying to keep the status quo, encouraging Trump to stay in West Asia, support Europe against Russia, and counter China. It will take time before America fully retreats. But Trump is providing the first signs.
This trajectory will not end with his presidency. The broader US establishment is slowly recognizing the limits of unipolarity. If it cannot dominate the globe, it will dominate the region.
But even that might fail.
If Venezuela holds, if the Global South aligns, and if popular forces in Latin America rally around sovereignty rather than subservience, then not even the hemisphere will be safe for empire.
What comes next may not be isolationism. It may be retreat – disguised, weaponized, and still dangerous. But it will no longer be “hegemony.”
