Power, intelligence, and consequence collide as America reshapes Venezuela’s future

 

Venezuela Crisis Exposes the High Stakes of U.S. Intervention and Global Power

     I read the NBC News article about Maduro arriving in New York and Trump saying the U.S. will govern Venezuela until there’s a “proper transition,” and it stuck with me. It made me think about how power shows itself when the usual rules start to bend. Hearing the United States openly say it’s going to run another country, even temporarily, isn’t just bold. It’s unsettling. It says a lot about how America sees its place in the world and how it weighs security against values and long-term consequences.

     This doesn’t feel like a clean legal move or a straightforward humanitarian effort. It feels like power being exercised because it can be, and that kind of leverage always comes with baggage.

     Taking over another country’s government, even if you call it temporary, runs straight into the wall of sovereignty and international law. There’s no getting around that. And yet that’s exactly what happened after Nicolás Maduro was seized in a military operation and flown out of Venezuela. Once you start talking about running another country until a transition happens, the questions pile up fast. Who decides what a “proper” transition even looks like? Who actually benefits when that transition is over? And where do regular Venezuelans fit into all of this?

     Those aren’t ivory-tower questions. They’re the kinds of things U.S. intelligence professionals worry about constantly because they cut right to credibility, blowback, and long-term consequences.

     There’s always been a tension in Washington between bold political talk and the quieter, more cautious judgments coming out of the intelligence agencies. Politicians like clean lines and big statements. Intelligence analysts don’t work that way. Folks at the CIA and DNI aren’t looking at the world in slogans or good-guy versus bad-guy terms. They’re tracking loyalties, alliances, risks, and what could go wrong when nobody’s watching.

     They also know something history keeps proving. Taking out a dictator doesn’t automatically make things better. Sometimes it makes them much worse. When a strongman falls, the chaos that follows can be more dangerous than the regime that came before it. Countries splinter. Proxy wars emerge. Violence drags on without a clear end. That’s the reality intelligence professionals are paid to worry about, even when it doesn’t fit neatly into a political message.

     So when the president talks about acting “for the good of the Venezuelan people,” intelligence professionals are already looking a few moves ahead. They’re not denying how badly the Maduro regime failed or brushing off the real suffering Venezuelans have endured for years. They understand that. But they also know that stepping in and running another country from the outside, even with good intentions, can backfire fast. It can deepen instability, hand propaganda wins to America’s rivals and weaken U.S. credibility with democratic allies who take sovereignty seriously.

     They’re also very aware of how this looks to the rest of the world. Images and headlines of the United States governing another country, even temporarily, are exactly the kind of material Russia and China love to exploit. It feeds their narrative that America isn’t a supporter of democracy, but an empire throwing its weight around. That’s why U.S. intelligence is watching this so closely, because in global politics, perception often matters as much as what’s happening on the ground.

     In my own spy thriller reading and writing, I’ve always been drawn to moments like this, where things look simple on the surface but fall apart once you get closer. In my Corey Pearson–CIA Spymaster Series, missions that seem clean at first quickly turn messy when human nature, local politics, and on-the-ground realities collide. Fiction is just a way to explore those deeper truths.

     The difference is that the people making these calls in Washington and inside the intelligence community don’t get neat chapter endings. They’re dealing with the same dilemmas right now, and they have to live with the consequences long after the headlines fade.

     There’s a moral struggle here that goes beyond maps and military plans. For decades, the United States has talked about standing up for democracy and helping people break free from oppression. But when we act alone and use force, the line between helping and controlling blurs fast. And when loyalty to a political agenda matters more than what intelligence professionals are warning about, power stops being used carefully. It becomes a gamble.

     This moment highlights a bigger problem about how America sees itself versus how it actually acts. National security isn’t just about capturing leaders or scoring quick wins. It’s about trust, credibility, and keeping allies on your side over time. It means backing up our values with our actions. When leaders prioritize short-term victories over long-term strategy, it raises red flags. And it’s not just adversaries who notice. Allies start to wonder if raw power has replaced principle.

     What America is really deciding right now isn’t just how to get out of Venezuela without making things worse. It’s whether we want to lead by working with others and respecting the rules we expect everyone else to follow, or by throwing our weight around and daring the world to accept it.   That’s why U.S. intelligence officials are losing sleep over this. They know this choice won’t just shape Venezuela’s future. It’s going to define America’s security and standing for years to come.

 

Robert Morton is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO) and writes about the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC). He also writes the Corey Pearson- CIA Spymaster Series, which blends his knowledge of real-life intelligence operations with gripping fictional storytelling. His work offers readers an insider’s glimpse into the world of espionage, inspired by the complexities and high-stakes realities of the intelligence community.