The article examines the American strategy concerning regime change in Venezuela, especially following a recent incident involving Trump and the Venezuelan regime. It asserts that the longstanding belief that regimes could not be changed without military boots on the ground has been reinforced by past military failures in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result, it posits that U.S. interventions are unlikely to succeed without significant military presence, which has proven insufficient in achieving lasting change.

Furthermore, the article highlights that non-military missions supported by NGOs, such as promoting political feminism in Afghanistan, often lead to exorbitant logistical demands that benefit well-connected contractors and lobbyists. This situation complicates the already intricate and costly nature of military interventions, raising questions about effectiveness and economic justification. The assertion is that the U.S. may have fundamentally misunderstood the dynamics at play in Venezuela, where the current regime has become an American protectorate without substantial military intervention.

In summary, the article reflects on the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy regarding regime change, suggesting that previous failures should lead to a reevaluation of intervention strategies. It contemplates the complexities of external attempts to influence internal political situations in foreign nations, such as Venezuela, and the necessity for a more nuanced understanding of local dynamics, as well as the costs involved in such endeavors.