Comparing Two U.S. Military Interventions: Venezuela and Panama

On a significant day in Caracas, January 3, 2026, the US forces successfully arrested Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as a symbolic national flag waved in the city.

In a striking repeat of history, U.S. military operations, three and a half decades apart, captured two high-profile Latin American leaders, bringing them to the U.S. for drug-related legal actions.

The 1990 capture of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega was orchestrated under President George H.W. Bush. In a similar dramatic twist, President Trump’s administration detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on a recent weekend.

Geopolitical Strategies and Objectives

According to political analysts, the United States aimed to secure pivotal resources within the Western hemisphere, which includes the significant Panama Canal and Venezuela’s vital oil reserves.

President Trump disclosed their intentions to sell Venezuelan oil, capitalizing on the newfound control and assuring increased production as the existing infrastructure was previously inadequate.

Distinct Variations in Intervention Outcomes

While sharing certain elements, experts and former diplomats discern substantial contrasts between Panama's operation and Venezuela's, expressing concerns about the eventual outcomes in the latter.

Panama’s situation is often highlighted as a successful U.S. intervention in Latin America, distinct from other instances like CIA interventions in Guatemala and Chile. John Feeley, a seasoned diplomat and former ambassador to Panama, accentuates the positive repercussions of the 1989 invasion.

Feeley emphasized that Panama transitioned into a democratic system ensuring self-governance, smooth governance shifts, and robust economic growth.

A key success factor was the presence of a robust political opposition ready to assume leadership, with American troops promptly executing their mission.

Uncertainty in Venezuela's Governance Transition

Conversely, Trump pronounced the U.S.'s temporary governance over Venezuela, anticipating a responsible transition. Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela's Vice-President, was named the interim president.

Rodríguez, however, publicly criticized the U.S. actions, labeling them as an unacceptable breach of Venezuelan sovereignty, challenging Trump’s declarations.

Trump’s dismissal of opposition leader Maria Corina Machado—the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize honoree—further stirred controversy as he claimed she lacked national support.

According to Feeley, Trump’s underestimation of Machado was disheartening given Maduro's low popularity and allegations of election rigging.

Concerns of a Stable Transition and Future Challenges

Mass protests erupted in Boston against U.S. military intervention, reflecting public unease about the approach to Venezuela.

Douglas Farah, a strategic analyst, voiced apprehensions regarding the absence of a cohesive transition plan. Potential scenarios envisioned chaos unless a moderated shift towards democracy was undertaken.

The fear of a power vacuum looms large, with risks of violence from encroaching guerrilla groups.

President Trump, during a press meeting, left the possibility of deploying American troops in Venezuela open-ended.

Farah warned that managing Venezuela would be exceedingly challenging compared to Panama due to differences in geographic and population scale.

He highlighted the complexities posed by Venezuela’s diverse terrain and lack of pre-established U.S. influence.