America's New Hemisphere Doctrine Emerges from Venezuela Operation

In a matter of hours this January, US special forces successfully extracted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife from Caracas without a single American casualty. Operation Absolute Resolve, as it's been dubbed, represents more than just another regime change—it's the debut of what the Trump administration calls a revolutionary approach to hemispheric security.

The Swift Execution

The operation caught even seasoned intelligence analysts off guard. Unlike previous US interventions that involved months of diplomatic pressure, coalition building, and gradual escalation, this extraction happened with *surgical precision* and minimal advance warning to traditional allies.

According to Pentagon sources, the mission leveraged extensive networks within Venezuela's military and intelligence apparatus—relationships apparently cultivated during Maduro's seven-year rule. The speed suggests either exceptional intelligence preparation or, more controversially, that key Venezuelan officials had already agreed to facilitate the transition.

Maduro and his wife are now in US custody, though their exact location remains classified. Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who the US has recognized since 2019, is expected to assume interim leadership under American protection.

The Trump Corollary Unveiled

The administration frames this operation as the practical application of the 'Trump Corollary'—a modern interpretation of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine. While Monroe's original doctrine warned European powers against further colonization in the Americas, Trump's version asserts America's right to *unilateral intervention* when hemispheric stability is threatened.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained the doctrine in stark terms: "The Western Hemisphere will no longer serve as a playground for authoritarian regimes backed by hostile foreign powers." This appears to target not just Venezuela's ties with Russia and Cuba, but also China's growing economic influence across Latin America.

The doctrine represents a sharp departure from the multilateral approach favored by previous administrations. Where Biden emphasized working through the Organization of American States and building consensus, Trump 2.0 prioritizes *speed and decisiveness* over diplomatic consensus.

Global Reactions and Regional Calculations

Latin American responses reveal the complex geopolitical calculations at play. Colombia and Brazil—both facing spillover effects from Venezuelan migration and instability—offered cautious support. However, Mexico's President expressed alarm, asking "If it's Venezuela today, who's tomorrow?"

The reaction from major powers is telling. China, which had invested heavily in Venezuelan oil infrastructure, condemned the operation as "flagrant interference in internal affairs." Russia, which maintained military advisors in Venezuela, called it a "dangerous precedent" that threatens global stability.

European allies find themselves in an awkward position. While many EU nations never recognized Maduro's legitimacy, the *unilateral nature* of the US action challenges their preference for international legal frameworks and UN-sanctioned interventions.

The Broader Strategic Shift

Analysts are calling this approach 'Doctrinal Realism'—a foreign policy philosophy that combines traditional realpolitik with explicit doctrinal statements. Unlike the Bush Doctrine's focus on preemption against terrorist threats, or Obama's "pivot to Asia," the Trump Corollary specifically targets *regional spheres of influence*.

This shift reflects broader changes in global power dynamics. With China asserting control in the South China Sea and Russia maintaining influence in Eastern Europe, the US appears to be drawing its own *red lines* in the Western Hemisphere.

The timing is also significant. Coming early in Trump's second term, the operation sends a message to both adversaries and allies about America's willingness to act decisively. It may be intended to deter further Chinese investment in Latin American infrastructure or Russian military cooperation in the region.

Questions About Precedent and Legitimacy

The operation raises fundamental questions about international law and sovereignty. While the US argues that Maduro's government was illegitimate and that the extraction served humanitarian purposes, critics worry about the *precedent being set*.

If the US can unilaterally remove leaders it deems illegitimate in its hemisphere, what prevents other powers from applying similar logic in their regions? Would China be justified in removing leaders it considers hostile in Southeast Asia? Could Russia claim similar authority in former Soviet states?

The legal justification remains murky. The administration hasn't clearly articulated whether it's claiming humanitarian intervention, invitation by legitimate authorities, or simply asserting hemispheric prerogatives under the Monroe Doctrine's modern interpretation.