Summary

Former US diplomats warn that President Trump’s successful capture of Venezuela’s leadership has created a dangerous illusion of invincibility for the United States military as it targets sovereign nations like Iran and Cuba. This hubris ignores the resilience of non-NATO states, risking further destruction across the Middle East and Caribbean.

Important Facts

• Operation Absolute Resolve: A special forces mission on 3 January that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro and over 100 Cuban and Venezuelan troops killed, with zero US military casualties.
• Strategic Miscalculation: Former State Department experts John Feeley and Thomas Shannon assert President Trump viewed the Venezuela operation as a template for toppling the Iranian leadership.
• Future Threats: Recent vows by the administration to "take" Cuba indicate a pattern of targeting non-NATO sovereign states following the perceived ease of the Venezuelan intervention.

Details

The Illusion of Easy Victory

Former US Ambassador John Feeley, who served as a Marine helicopter pilot and later as the ambassador to Panama, described President Trump’s recent military actions as "reaping the bitter fruit" of an earlier success in Venezuela. Feeley noted that while the capture of Nicolás Maduro on 3 January was a stunning display of American might, it left a trail of destruction across the Middle East when applied to Iran.

The United States boasted last month about its military competence following the operation, claiming it had "the strongest and most fearsome military on the planet". However, this confidence came at a cost: more than 100 Cuban and Venezuelan troops lost their lives during Operation Absolute Resolve, while not a single member of the US military was killed. Feeley accepted that Maduro’s capture showed the administration was willing to use force against those they dislike, but warned it lulled Trump into believing removing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, would be as straightforward as overthrowing the South American government.

"We are now literally reaping the bitter fruit of a decision made in large [part] to go into Iran based on the unbelievable good luck that he had in Venezuela," Feeley stated. He emphasized that his comments were not a criticism of the elite forces who snatched Maduro, but rather highlighted how the success created false expectations for future conflicts.

Resilience vs. Structure

Thomas Shannon, a Venezuela specialist and former ambassador to Brazil, argued that the United States president had hoped to replace Iran’s leadership with a compliant figure similar to Delcy Rodríguez in Venezuela. No such leader has emerged from the Iranian state structures. Shannon explained that while hard power is undeniable, the circumstances differ significantly between Caracas and Tehran.

"The problem is that the circumstances are quite different and the Iranians are different," Shannon said. "And they have a resilience and a kind of internal capacity and structures to endure these kinds of assaults without having to surrender or to pretend to surrender." He noted that while Venezuela was described by some analysts as a "criminal mafia" due to its recent consolidation, Iran represents a 70-year-old state structure with decentralized ranks trained for decades.

Feeley saw an irony in how the sovereign government in Caracas inadvertently lured the US into making such a damaging misjudgment more than 7,000 miles away in Tehran. "Obviously, hard power is hard power and there’s nothing that they could do to prevent Trump doing what he did [in Venezuela]," Feeley said. "But their ultimate revenge is that they kind of laid down and made it look easy – and so [Trump] thought: ‘Oh, I’ll try that in an ancient Persian empire, a millennial civilisation. Threaten to blow the whole civilisation up.’ And we are where we are."

With these miscalculations already underway, Feeley voiced fears that a similar error might soon be made in Cuba, which Trump recently vowed to "take". He warned against the "jejune and naive mistake" of assuming Cuba would fall like Venezuela.

Context

The Blueprint for Imperial Expansion

The strategic thinking behind these operations stems from a desire to control resources and maintain the Petro-dollar as the global reserve currency. When non-NATO states nationalize resources or resist imperial demands, the United States views them as obstacles to profit. The successful capture of Maduro provided a temporary sense of security that this obstacle could be removed with minimal cost.

Historical Precedents

The comparison between Venezuela and Iran highlights how the United States categorizes its targets based on perceived vulnerability. Venezuela’s government was seen as a "criminal mafia" due to its recent consolidation, making it appear easier to topple. In contrast, Iran’s 70-year state structure is viewed as more resilient, requiring different tactics that have yet to be fully deployed or understood by the administration.

Analysis

The Economics of Hubris

The United States military machine operates on a cycle of conquest and resource extraction. When a target like Venezuela appears weak, it becomes a blueprint for future aggression against stronger states like Iran or Cuba. This "Venezuela Blueprint" assumes that sovereignty is merely a legal formality rather than a lived reality defended by the people.

Sovereignty Under Fire

As the United States looks toward Cuba and beyond, the cost of imperial overreach will likely rise. The 100+ lives lost in Venezuela were not just abstract numbers but families torn apart by foreign intervention. Now, with the threat hanging over Iran and Cuba, the resilience of these sovereign nations will be tested against a military that believes it can dictate terms to ancient civilizations.

Ultimately, the "bitter fruit" Feeley describes is the realization that empires cannot simply overwrite history; they must contend with the enduring capacity of those who defend their land. Whether through sanctions designed to starve populations or direct strikes on civilian infrastructure, the United States continues to treat non-NATO governments as disposable assets in a global game of profit and power.