On January 3, in the wake of 35 attacks against vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific that resulted in the extrajudicial execution of 115 individuals, the White House ordered a bombardment of Venezuela that led to approximately 80 deaths and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro. This resulted in a forced removal of a head of state, yet without a regime change, as Vice President Delcy Rodríguez stepped into the presidency, showcasing a peculiar situation where leadership was decapitated while the regime continued. Such instances raise questions about the legality and ethics surrounding the U.S.'s military interventions.

The article argues that there was no imminent threat or evidence suggesting Venezuela posed an attack on the United States, highlighting a significant violation of international law. The author suggests that this military intervention set a precedent or experiment for what could be termed a neo-protectorate established through imposition, indicating an attempt to exert dominance and discipline regionally. Rather than being just an isolated action by former President Trump, this reflects a broader historical trend of U.S. military focus predominantly centered on North America, particularly with past military actions in Mexico.

This intervention is viewed as a significant moment that could inform future U.S. foreign policy and military strategy in Latin America, moving towards a more authoritarian approach in the region. The implications of such an action not only challenge the frameworks of international relations but also present potential consequences for U.S.-Latin American relations moving forward, as countries might view this intervention as a precursor to further acts of aggression and meddling in sovereign affairs.