Although the overthrow of the dictator was formally illegal under international law, it represents a morally entirely justified measure. Over 90% of the approximately 8 million Venezuelans in exile who left the country during his rule welcomed the arrest with great joy. Even those who remained feel cheated in elections; 70 to 80% support the opposition (AI study by Grok on X). Even without a ballot box, the will of the nation is clear, making the intervention an objective liberation. In this context, it is worth noting the first sentence of the US Constitution, which begins with the words "We the people..." and clarifies who the legitimate sovereign is in a democratic state: the people, the citizens.
Trump's decisive intervention, like no other realistic measure, has given effect to the democratic will of the 39 million Venezuelans at home and abroad after years of oppression. Therefore, the formally correct accusation by critics that the American intervention violated Venezuela's sovereignty represents a vacuum. Maduro was not authorized by the Venezuelan sovereign to represent the country. Venezuela, correctly viewed as the democratic nation, was not attacked by the Trump administration, but liberated. According to research by AI Grok on X, Maduro's violations of the rule of law during his 13-year reign led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. In addition, there were hundreds of thousands of indirect deaths due to increased mortality, particularly among children. This resulted from catastrophic economic and medical conditions, as well as accidents during the perilous escape. In contrast, liberation from this tyranny claimed less than a handful of civilian lives.
After Trump successfully ended Netanyahu's dangerous 12-day war against Iran in June 2025 with a short, decisive, and respect-demanding strike, his minimally invasive overthrow of Maduro demonstrates how liberation from tyranny can be achieved without war.
The Maduro case brings the world to a crossroads. The question now is one of endless wars and civil wars with ever-increasing destructive potential, or solutions that avoid wars. Such solutions were already advocated in the preamble to the UN Charter in 1945, but not elaborated upon. To recognize the current great opportunity, it is necessary to become aware of the immense threat that free civilization faces should it continue down its current suicidal path. In 2003, then-President George W. Bush, much like Donald Trump is now doing in Venezuela, violated Iraq's sovereignty without a declaration of war or authorization from the UN Security Council.
But apart from the formally similar beginning, this attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq became a nightmare. For our free civilization, it is vital to prevent a repeat this catastrophe in Venezuela at all costs. This requires us to learn from the Iraqi disaster, the full extent of which was largely unknown to the Western public until very recently:
- The justification for the 2003 intervention was based on misinformation from the CIA and the military leadership regarding alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
- The operation, proclaimed by George W. Bush as the liberation of the Iraqi people, turned out to be a brutal conquest and occupation that lasted almost nine years, until 2011, and cost around one billion dollars.
- The Iraqi security forces, which had been “trained” by the CIA and the US military, became notorious for inhumane treatment methods, including torture.
- While the mainstream media portrayed the British-American military strikes as a precise elimination of the enemy's defenses, in reality, there was massive destruction of homes and infrastructure (bridges, power plants, industrial facilities).
- Approximately 4.2 million people lost their homes; almost half of them fled the country.
- The ruthless treatment of the civilian population through constant checks, suspicion, arrests, and restrictions created a polarizing atmosphere that severely hindered the promotion of liberal democratic values.
- Widespread frustration provided fertile ground for anti-Western radicalization, which also gave rise to ISIS.
- Overall, the nearly nine years of the "war of liberation" and occupation cost almost as many Iraqi lives as the 24-year rule of Saddam Hussein (not including war casualties).
- Western nations also suffered significant damage, as their reputation and role model status in the Islamic world were severely damaged.
The irresponsible cover-up of these monstrous events by uncritical mainstream media was only broken after a delay, primarily due to the revelations of the independent platform WikiLeaks. The persecution which its founder, Julian Assange, faced for approximately 15 years, in violation of the rule of law, has confirmed the serious threat that the insufficiently democratically controlled American intelligence agencies and the military pose to true freedom and the rule of law.
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assage
The danger of these militaristic developments was already foreseen by the presidents of the founding decades of the United States, most notably Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams. The latter issued a stark warning against a violent path that democratic America must oppose with all its spiritual and moral strength: „She (America) might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.“ https://jqas.org/jqas-monsters-to-destroy-speech-full-text/
Now it depends primarily on Maduro's supporters and the military in Venezuela whether they accept the targeted intervention that removed Maduro from his illegally usurped office as a first step toward a democratic new beginning, or whether they plunge the country even deeper into chaos through irrational resistance than the dictator has already done.
Trump should remember that the administrations of his predecessors severely damaged the reputation of the USA in Latin America for decades, following the same pattern that was later repeated under George W. Bush in his counterproductive military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was possible because the media failed on a gigantic scale (the word is still too weak) in their role as guardians of freedom and democracy. https://www.frieden-freiheit-fairness.com/de/blog/neglected-defence-free-press
There was always understanding when the CIA overthrew an elected president and replaced him with a dictator. Every effort was made to distract the public from the same profiteers of American military policy. These were primarily large corporations like the former United Fruit Company, the oil multinationals, and the arms industry. The civilian population, on the other hand, suffered immeasurably as a result of these interventions. A common strategy was to arm supposedly pro-Western rebels, who, after their training by the CIA, acted even more brutally. Since decisive and conclusive military strikes were the exception, the fighting and suffering continued for years, if not decades. The Guatemalan civil war lasted 36 years and left behind a country mired in poverty, corruption, and organized crime.
In his transition management in Venezuela, Donald Trump must sensitively consider the psychological wounds inflicted on Latin America by decades of counterproductive US militarism and corporate protectionism. This requires a clear break with the policies of his predecessors and the proclamation of a new, genuine democratic partnership. The announcement of offering American oil companies investment opportunities in Venezuela was, at the very least, premature. It is essential that Maduro's overthrow be perceived as an idealistically motivated, minimally invasive intervention that paves the way for a peaceful, free, and just future. Any suspicion that Trump would revive past counterproductive US interventions must be refuted by his policies. Unlike insufficiently informed Americans and Europeans, Latin Americans are acutely aware of these historical interventions and those responsible. Particularly profound events like the aforementioned civil war in Guatemala are known, partly in considerable detail.
Equally crucial for a peaceful transition in Venezuela is Trump’s resolute continuation of cleansing the unreliable CIA and the US military by. Both have acted ineffectively, even counterproductively, since the Vietnam War.
The president has little time left for the necessary clarification of the battle lines. Already, everyone is focused on Venezuela's oil. Seventy percent of it has gone to China so far. Substantially changing this would once again allow US oil companies to dictate the direction of American policy. That would be the first step toward a 2026 of global chaos and violence.
With all due respect to the arguments and reservations of those who question the legitimacy of Maduro's overthrow, a clear warning must be issued against any emotionalization of this conflict. Supporting the armed forces would incite them to absurd resistance and pave the way for civil war. This would amount to a relapse into the inhumane militarism of millennia under autocratic rule, when soldiers were sacrificed for the expansion of their king's or emperor's power.
That the overthrow of Maduro represents a test case of global significance is also demonstrated by looking at Iran. Just as most Venezuelans felt betrayed by Maduro, most Iranians feel betrayed by their leadership. The ayatollahs promised the citizens freedom before the referendum and their seizure of power in February/March 1979. But their 'Islamic Republic' very soon proved to be an Islamist dictatorship. https://www.mei.edu/publications/iranian-revolution-february-1979
If political decision-makers now manage the trial run in Venezuela in a way that avoids war, there are also prospects for a solution in the unstable Middle East that puts an end to the activities of terrorist supporters in Tehran, but does not make the civilian population suffer for their crimes.
Maduro's successful overthrow offers a historic opportunity. Wars can largely be prevented if destabilizing, repressive regimes recognized as dangerous are removed from power and held accountable through intelligent, narrowly defined interventions. Of course, such interventions must be authorized in the future according to new internationally agreed-upon rules. However, it must be clearly recognized that, unlike past practices from Central America to Afghanistan and Syria of arming 'pro-Western' rebels in endlessly protracted wars, the war-avoiding, minimally invasive approach adheres to the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, it also corresponds to the sovereignty claim of UN members according to Article 2 of the 1945 Charter. This is because the members mentioned there several times are primarily not states with their nations, but rather United NATIONS*) with THEIR states.
*) By presenting itself not as the United States of the World, but as the Organization of the United Nations, the occasional reference in the Charter text to states (e.g., in Article 3) represents a secondary identifying characteristic.