Removing Maduro not to solve Venezuela problem

TABNAK, Jan. 05 - Professor Paul Pillar believes that it is folly to think that removing Maduro somehow solves the "Venezuela problem."

News ID: 7090

Date: 05 January 2026 - 11:45

In a move that stunned the world, the United States bombed Venezuela and abducted President Nicolas Maduro amid condemnation and plaudits.

In a news conference on Saturday at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, US President Donald Trump praised the operation to seize Maduro as one of the “most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history”.

Following the US move, TABNAK reached out to Professor Paul Pillar former CIA intelligence analyst to shed more light on the issue.

Following is the full text of the interview:

The United States attacked Venezuela and arrested Nicolás Maduro. This shows that the goals of the United States are multidimensional. What is your assessment of the reasons for this action?

Several tendencies within the Trump administration came together to lead to this action. Trump envisions a world divided into spheres of influence dominated by China, Russia, and the United States, with the Western Hemisphere being the U.S. sphere. Unrestrained unilateral action by the United States against states it doesn't like in Latin America is a consequence of this vision. Trump has long talked up the theme of foreigners sending drugs into the United States--it was an underlying theme in his building of a border wall during his first term--and Maduro, as an otherwise loathsome head of government in the region, and one having relations with China, Russia, and Iran, has been a convenient opponent in this regard. With Trump's popularity sagging mainly because of economic issues in the United States, he was actively looking for a foreign adventure that he could use as a distraction and a rally-around-the-flag cause. In addition is the longstanding sentiment--represented especially within the administration by Secretary Rubio--opposed to the regime in Cuba, and by extension to Cuba's ally in Venezuela.

Senator Mike Lee, a member of the U.S. Senate, stated that Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State of that country, informed him that now that Maduro is in U.S. custody, no further action in Venezuela is expected. What is your assessment?

It is folly to think that removing Maduro somehow solves the "Venezuela problem." Trump has made some threatening noises that suggest further action against members of Maduro's government, but Trump may naively believe that grabbing Maduro really does constitute enough of a result to declare victory. Either there will be more U.S. action in Venezuela, or the U.S. will simply leave a mess in Venezuela.

With Maduro’s arrest, will power be transferred to his opponents? If not, what will the U.S. approach be?

There is a whole cadre of people, including in the Venezuelan military, who have a stake in continuing something close to the political and economic system that Maduro presided over. Those people are not just going to quietly fade away. Power struggles within that group, and between regime elements and opposition elements, are likely to ensue. One should remember that Maduro was not the founder or prime mover of what became the Venezuelan regime; that instead was Hugo Chavez, whom Maduro succeeded when Chavez died of natural causes. Probably Trump has not thoroughly thought through a long-term approach. Perhaps the follow-up U.S. action will be something like Israeli-style "mowing the grass"--periodic military attacks that keep another nation weak while not solving any problems.