Now that the United States has taken decisive action to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, the inevitable comparisons are already emerging. Critics invoke Iraq. Supporters point to Panama.
Both analogies are tempting—although one is more appropriate than the other.
More than two decades ago, on January 24, 2004, I landed in Baghdad as a legal consultant, assigned to an office in what was then known as the Green Zone.
It was raining and cold, and my backpack was thrown into a puddle of water from the C-130 plane that had just made a spiral turn to reach the runway without risk of ground fire.
Young American soldiers greeted me as we got into a vehicle, sped out of the airport complex, and headed down a road dubbed the “Highway of Death” because of car bombs and snipers.
What trouble has our country gotten itself into?
That was my first thought on that harrowing trip, and over the course of a year in the country and then during subsequent presidential administrations, I have often counseled prudence and caution in defining American foreign policy objectives.
This is especially true when it comes to the use of military power, the application of which must be linked to clear, articulated and achievable objectives.
You might think that the current situation in Venezuela serves as a warning for us to stop before our country finds itself again in a situation that we do not fully understand and with uncertain consequences.
Not so fast.
The situation in Venezuela today bears little comparison to Iraq and much more resembles Panama 35 years ago, before the US military operation to remove a dictator and install an elected government that enjoyed broad public support.
That mission was a success, and Panama today is a functioning democracy, friendly to the US, although not free from problems ranging from crime to corruption.
Maduro now faces trial in New York, just as Noriega did in Florida, where the former Panamanian leader was convicted of crimes including drug trafficking and money laundering.
Is it possible that we are so paralyzed by the experience of Iraq (and Afghanistan) that we miss the opportunity to improve the lives of Venezuelans and stability in our own hemisphere, along the lines of Panama?
Venezuela and Panama: Similar pretexts
On December 20, 1989, President George HW Bush addressed the nation to define the rationale behind the mission he had just ordered to Panama.
He explained that Panama was governed by “an indicted drug trafficker,” Manuel Noriega, who would soon “be brought to justice” in the US.
Bush added that Noriega nullified democratic elections and that the winners of those elections would soon take power in Panama City, likely with broad support.
The Noriega regime also threatened and harmed Americans, including the recent death of an American soldier, shot by Noriega’s security services.
Finally, Bush discussed the strategic importance of the Panama Canal and Washington’s commitment to existing treaties, which Noriega was unlikely to honor.
In this context, Bush explained the objectives of the mission: “Safeguard the lives of Americans, defend democracy in Panama, combat drug trafficking and protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty.”
Two weeks later, Noriega was in U.S. custody, the elected opposition government took power, and American forces began to leave the country.
I recently spoke with a former American military comrade who participated in this operation, parachuting into Panama before Bush’s speech.
“Of all our military missions since Korea,” he told me, “Panama must be considered one of the most successful. To go there now is to see a very prosperous democratic country.”
Now, let’s look at Venezuela.
Until this weekend, the country was governed by Nicolás Maduro, who, like Noriega, faces criminal charges in American courts.
The accusations against Maduro are more extensive. .
He is also accused of heading the drug trafficking organization “Cartel de los Soles”, which the State Department has just classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Washington has offered a $50 million reward to anyone who can help capture Maduro.
Like Noriega, Maduro also invalidated successive elections and violently repressed democratic movements within the country.
The US and most of its Western allies recognize the opposition led by María Corina Machado as the legitimate government of Venezuela. Opposition parties, according to independent observers, received 70% of the vote in the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, which Maduro claims he won.
Finally, Maduro, like Noriega, threatened and harmed American citizens, as well as regional peace and security.
In recent years, like his allies in Iran, Maduro has effectively held Americans hostage for diplomatic maneuvers with the US.
These hostages include an American sailor on vacation in Venezuela, longtime American residents of the country and executives of Citgo, an American subsidiary of the Venezuelan state oil company, who reside in the United States.
In 2023, Maduro threatened to invade neighboring Guyana, a US ally, and recently claimed sovereignty over two-thirds of Guyanese territory, justifying the claim — just as Putin did with eastern Ukraine — based on a distorted history and a rigged referendum.
Significant differences
With Maduro in U.S. custody, there is no guarantee that local authorities across the country will cooperate with a new government, opening the possibility of civil wars and a violent struggle for power and resources.
Maduro has claimed to have recruited a militia of millions to resist any US-backed operation, and while this claim may be exaggerated, we must assume that drug cartels may attempt to take control of the country’s interior, rather than the forces of democracy we hope or desire to see prevail.
Venezuela is more than ten times larger than Panama.
The geostrategic context is also very different. In 1989, the Soviet Union had collapsed with the fall of the Berlin Wall six weeks before the American invasion of Panama.
The United States was the undisputed great power in the world, and there was no reason to expect or anticipate that other superpowers would resist the military operation or make their own moves in other hemispheres.
Currently, Russia and China are aligned with Maduro, and their leaders may cite the American operation in Venezuela as further justification for pursuing their own hemispheric ambitions against Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively.
What are Trump’s options?
In November, President Donald Trump cryptically stated that he had “made a decision” about a course of action in Venezuela.
This occurred after the CNN report several high-level meetings at the White House with military commanders on options in light of the increased naval presence on the coast and exercises conducted by the U.S. Marine Corps in rural and urban areas of Trinidad and Tobago.
Maduro appeared to interpret these actions as a possible American intervention, summoning his militias and, at the same time, calling for dialogue, even singing John Lennon’s peace anthem “Imagine” at a recent rally.
To add to the confusion, the government had not made its objectives clear. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described the mission as one to “defend our homeland, eliminate narcoterrorism from our hemisphere, and protect our homeland from the drugs that are killing our people.”
Although there was no mention in official statements of the restoration of democracy in Venezuela, or the goal of removing Maduro from power, Trump declared that Maduro’s days were “numbered”, and military deployments, including the most advanced aircraft carrier strike group in the American arsenal, suggested objectives that went beyond the publicly stated goals of Operation Southern Spear.
Without a doubt, Maduro’s removal is in the interests of the US and the Venezuelan people. Before the government of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, the country was among the most prosperous in South America, while today it is in chaos, with per capita income having fallen by 72%, one of the most severe economic collapses in history.
More than three-quarters of the population, according to reliable polls, oppose their government, and there is an opposition government prepared to take power if given the opportunity.
Until this weekend, despite its bellicose rhetoric, the Trump administration appeared reluctant to pursue regime change through military means, a course of action that would run counter to its stated aversion to protracted military conflicts.
This prudence was perhaps justified. The differences with Panama, at this point, outweigh the similarities or the hope that an operation against Maduro will be as successful as the one carried out in Panama more than three decades ago.
But the government must not give up the influence it has built over Maduro but rather use it effectively.
In the absence of a military operation to depose Maduro, the government could have demanded that he hand over key figures in drug trafficking networks inside Venezuela, withdraw claims to Guyana, and commit to holding new elections with international observers, which he would certainly lose.
Going further, the government could have demanded his exile, perhaps to Russia, where he could join Bashar al-Assad, the former president of Syria, another dictator who destroyed his own country in pursuit of personal power.
For any of these measures to work, the government would need to secure the support of allies, including in South America, something it has so far been unable or unwilling to do in relation to its objectives in Venezuela.
In any case, before the US embarked on a policy to replace Maduro, there should have been a debate in Congress to weigh the pros and cons.
Conclusion
After two decades of protracted military conflicts abroad, the US is rightly wary of any new initiative aimed at regime change.
This caution is justified, but in Venezuela, the arguments in favor of Maduro’s removal from power have been convincing and draw more parallels with Panama than Iraq. However, the next political phase could prove much more complex than this weekend’s military operation.
Brett McGurk is a global affairs analyst for CNN and writes a regular column, bringing a unique, insider’s perspective to viewers and readers.
