The United States is embarking on a radically different path in Venezuela following the removal of strongman Nicolás Maduro. Forget the costly, drawn-out “nation-building” missions of the past, like Iraq or Afghanistan. Washington is now experimenting with “regime management,” or as some analysts call it, “nation-coaching.”
Instead of dismantling the entire government, the Trump administration chose to remove Maduro while keeping many of his hard-line officials in place – even those wanted for crimes. The goal? To steer Venezuela’s existing leaders in a more US-friendly direction without risking the chaos and endless military presence that comes with full-scale regime collapse. This means no “boots on the ground,” aiming to avoid a repeat of past expensive occupations that turned the American public against such interventions.
The immediate objectives are pragmatic: opening Venezuela’s vast oil industry to US and foreign companies, reducing drug flows, and pushing back against the influence of China, Russia, and Iran. While a transition to democracy remains a long-term hope, it’s not the primary, urgent focus of this new strategy.
It’s a bold and untested gamble. For ordinary Venezuelans, this approach might prevent a bloody civil conflict, but it also means their dreams of immediate democracy and economic recovery could be delayed. The same corrupt system largely persists, though some political prisoners have been released. Critics wonder if working with existing bad actors can truly lead to meaningful change.
This strategy could become a template for handling other challenging regimes, from Iran to Cuba. It reflects a growing recognition of the limits of US power and a desire for “practical change on the cheap.” The big question, however, is whether “nation-coaching” can genuinely reshape behavior without simply empowering the very systems it aims to change.
