Yves here. It’s become increasingly clear that when it comes to regime change, the U.S. would often prefer to see a nation descend into chaos rather than accept a leadership it disapproves of. Yet, many individuals seem to rely on not grasping this critical truth for their livelihoods.
During the Trump Administration’s previous attempts at regime change in Venezuela, Tulsi Gabbard strongly condemned these policies.
In May 2019, she argued against any U.S. involvement in removing Maduro, stating that such actions would lead to negative consequences… pic.twitter.com/nK7q5KIso6
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 16, 2025
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, authors of War In Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, now in a revised, updated 2nd edition. Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace and has authored several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK, and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
A United Socialist Party rally in Caracas, August 3, 2024. Photo: Morning Star
For years, the U.S. has propagated a dangerous myth: that regime change equates to liberation, suggesting that American bombs and sanctions can somehow foster democracy. However, countries that have endured such interventions understand the grim reality—it brings devastation, violence, and heartbreak. As the U.S. shifts its focus to Venezuela, the echoes of past interventions in Iraq and elsewhere serve as troubling indicators of what lies ahead.
With a U.S. military presence gathering off Venezuela’s coastline, a special operations aviation unit is conducting helicopter patrols. This unit, known as the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR) or the “Nightstalkers,” previously collaborated with Iraqi death squads during the U.S. occupation, instilling fear in those subjected to their operations.
While Western media often herald the 160th SOAR as an elite helicopter force, an officer from the regiment revealed on a blog their cooperative missions with the infamous Wolf Brigade, notorious for human rights abuses. He recounted operations in Baghdad where they detained civilians, even expressing pride in the brutal tactics employed.
Numerous individuals taken by the Wolf Brigade and other U.S.-trained Special Police were never seen again, while many others turned up dead, often discovered in mass graves far from their hometowns. Such practices echoed the U.S. response to Iraqi resistance against an unlawful invasion, characterized by brutal attacks and the deployment of death squads to sow terror within civilian populations.
The aftermath of such interventions has been dire. The UN reported over 34,000 civilian casualties in 2006 alone, while estimates suggest the total Iraqi death toll surpassed one million. Iraq remains in turmoil, and the U.S. never gained the anticipated benefits, with leaders installed by Washington siphoning off considerable resources.
The neoconservative agenda of “regime change” spans a tumultuous history, employing various tactics from coups to invasions. However, the term “regime change” is misleading; it suggests improvement when, in truth, it often leads to the enslavement of nations and their peoples.
Ultimately, whether through a coup or invasion, the critical question remains: who will replace the dismissed regime? Often, U.S.-backed actions lead to regimes that significantly worsen conditions for average citizens, enriching a select few through corruption and violence.
These so-called “military resolutions” do little to address the actual issues at hand, primarily resulting in a legacy of instability and suffering for years to come.
For instance, Kosovo was formed out of Serbia following a 1999 U.S.-led war, yet remains unrecognized by many nations and stands among Europe’s poorest countries. The primary ally of the U.S. during that conflict, Hashim Thaçi, now faces charges for war crimes in a Hague courtroom.
In Afghanistan, after two decades of conflict, the U.S. was ultimately defeated by the Taliban—the very entity it initially aimed to eliminate.
In Haiti, the U.S. intervention led to the removal of the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, plunging the country into a cycle of ongoing corruption and gang dominance.
Similarly, in 2006, the U.S. backed an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, which led to the rise of Al Shabab, claiming large territories within the nation. Recent years have also seen the U.S. conducting numerous airstrikes targeting Al Shabab strongholds.
In Honduras, the military coup against President Mel Zelaya in 2009 yielded further turmoil, leading to the election of successors who transformed the nation into a narco-state. Only recently, a progressive administration under Xiomara Castro offered a glimmer of hope for change.
Libya, rich in oil, continues to suffer due to the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion in 2011, witnessing sustained militia rule, the resurgence of slave markets, and a dramatic decrease in oil production.
The ongoing conflict in Syria, initially escalated by U.S. intervention, gave rise to ISIS, resulting in catastrophic invasions that devastated cities and communities.
Ukraine faced significant upheaval following the U.S.-backed removal of its government in 2014, which intensified conflict within the region and eventually led to Russia’s invasion.
The humanitarian crisis in Yemen deepened when the U.S. joined a Saudi-led intervention in 2015, resulting in the deaths of countless civilians without achieving the desired military objectives.
Turning our attention back to Venezuela, the U.S. has sought to undermine its government since Hugo Chavez’s election in 1998, employing methods including a failed coup, sanctions, and the promotion of questionable leaders.
Even if the regime change in Venezuela could be enacted, it remains an illicit undertaking under international law. Leaders of sovereign nations cannot be treated as mere pawns of U.S. interests.
As we witness current military actions against Venezuela, there are even calls from within the U.S. Congress condemning the actions as illegal, highlighting the contentious nature of Trump’s administration.
Despite claims of transitioning away from perpetual warfare, Trump continues to support ongoing military actions and has not shifted his administration’s course marked by aggressive foreign policy.
The appointment of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State poses significant challenges for U.S.-Latin America relations, given his history of antagonism towards nations like Cuba and Venezuela.
Brazilian President Lula distinctly articulated the need for responsible engagements with the U.S., advocating for pragmatic discussions while excluding Rubio from negotiations due to his adversarial stance.
Rubio’s rhetoric allows him to gain domestic traction; however, it undermines the U.S.’s ability to navigate global relations effectively. Trump’s decisions in confronting Venezuela encapsulate the contradictions within his foreign policy, teetering between being a benevolent leader and a harsh war figure.
The extensive history of U.S. interventions illustrates that regime change rarely leads to democracy or stability. As tensions escalate with Venezuela, it’s imperative to break free from this cycle of destructive U.S. interventions once and for all.
