Last week, US President Trump announced that the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, was arrested, together with his wife, and that the US “will run” the country until a safe and secure transition will be possible.

This is just the epilogue of an escalation that started weeks ago, which we discussed in our analysis. It was always meant to end up this way. The “war” on narco-terrorism has always looked like an excuse. It was clear that the ultimate goal was regime change. A few issues now deserve further reflection.

First, for those who expected Corina Machado to succeed President Maduro, there will be massive disappointment. During the press conference, US President Trump said that she lacks the necessary “respect” and legitimacy to be installed as new President. Corina Machado was prevented from running in the presidential election in 2024, which most international observers considered to be rigged. To some extent this was indirectly confirmed by the fact that Maduro himself declared a narrow victory, with a 51% majority. Instead, Trump said that the US will directly run Venezuela, in accordance with the local authorities, and that US oil companies will play a major role in the transition.

Second, and relatedly, the economic motivation behind this move seems obvious: given the ongoing retrenchment (which will bediscussed in further detail in future research), the US needs to secure the safest possible access to the world’s largest oil reserves. This will guarantee a smooth transition to the period when the US will enjoy almost unlimited access to cheap energy via nuclear fusion: but that period may be 10-15 years away.

Third, this move, which some compare to the arrest of Noriega by the Bush Sr. administration in Panama in 1989, may constitute a dangerous precedent for other countries with territorial ambitions, in particular Russia and China, which have been the supporters of the Maduro regime for the last few years. Putin may claim that Ukraine’s Zelensky represents a Nazi state (as he does already) and order his arrest. Same for China, which may start a large-scale military operation against Taiwan, and proceed to a change of its leadership.

Finally, this episode shows dramatic similarities with the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003: an operation aimed at securing American companies, such as Halliburton, which saw Vice President Dick Cheney being its chairman and CEO from 1995 to 2000, access to Iraq’s ample oil reserves, through a regime change initiated by the capture of the ruler Saddam Hussain. But compared to that episode, this is even worse, if possible. On that occasion, the US sought to obtain at least the fig leaf of UN approval, even if through the false claim of the weapons of mass destruction. In this case, the US did not even pretend to seek the support of multilateral organisation. I by-passed them, as useless old tools of the past – thus certifying that the rules-based international order is dead, in favour of the motto “might is right.”

We also look at the evolution of the situation in Iran, where the protests of the last few days may potentially lead to the collapse of the regime, with Trump having already said that the US is ready to intervene if the Islamic Republic attacks peaceful protesters. Another indication of a potential regime change to occur. But the US needs to be careful. However mighty the Americans may feel to be, their history is characterised by wars won on paper, but lost on the ground.