Realism in Action: U.S. Interventions
1. Introduction
The recent U.S.-backed
opposition's attempt to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has sent
shockwaves around the world, with many wondering if this marks a new era of U.S.
interventionism in Latin America. However, a glance at history reveals that
this is merely the latest chapter in a long book of U.S. military
interventions, often justified by lofty rhetoric but driven by strategic
interests. From the overthrow of democratically elected governments to the
invasion of oil-rich nations, the U.S. has consistently prioritized its own
power and influence over the sovereignty of other countries. As the world
watches Venezuela, it is time to take a step back and recognize that this is
not a new phenomenon, but rather a recurring pattern of U.S. behavior that has
shaped global politics for decades. Through the lens of Realism and the Leader
Image theory, this paper will demonstrate that this pattern is not only
predictable, but a testament to the enduring accuracy of realist principles in
explaining U.S. foreign policy.
2. Realism
& Leader Image theory
Politics is a broad discipline
which offers a variety of frameworks of analysis for scholars and researchers
to interpret different levels of analysis (individual level to global level).
Amongst these frameworks, Realism and its prescriptions, stands out as the
fitting and appropriate paradigm to offer understanding of state behaviour(s),
such as the U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Therefore, this theoretical section
takes on the exercise of laying the groundwork for analyzing such interventions
through the realist and Leader Image theory, by outlining the fundamental and
core tenets of Realism and exploring how the Leader Image theorists explain and
encapsulate the intersection of individualism/character and leadership. With
this understanding, the sage will be set for a deeper analysis into Trump’s
self-interested strategic interests as U.S. president, in the subsequent
chapter.
Realism is a paradigm which
stresses the importance of state power and relative gains, within an anarchic
global political landscape which is characterized by power dynamics and the
limitations which are often associated with cooperation. Therefore, realists
perceive the world as a competitive and conflicted arena occupied by states as
rational actors, who are constantly pursuing power, prestige, and self/national
interests, often at the disregard of moral considerations (Kegley, 1995:69-77;
Tickner, 1988:429-437; Dlakavu, 2018:42). Against this backdrop, realists
advocate for every state to prioritize their survival, security, and interests
above all else in this anarchic landscape.
For the purpose of
strengthening this study, Realism will be associated with the Leader Image
theory, as the latter complements the former by highlighting how the
characteristics of an individual will often influence their decision-making as
a leader. Hermann (2002:4-8) and Herrmann,
Voss, Schooler, and Ciarrochi (1997:422-424) attest that the Leader Image
theory is a study which takes on the exercise the of determining how individual
leaders are perceived by others, based off their characteristics,
traits, and behaviors, which often influences or shapes their decision-making
and policy choices. Dlakavu (2021:33) concurs and alludes that individual-level
factors, including convictions, preferences, personality traits, intellectual
strengths and weaknesses, personal values, beliefs, and worldviews,
significantly influence and shape foreign policymakers’ decisions.
In situations where conclusive
facts are scarce, policymakers often rely on their intellect, analytical
ability, values, and personal aspirations to guide their state's actions in
international affairs. Despite institutional and societal constraints, these
individual characteristics can determine a state's foreign policy trajectory,
particularly during crises or uncertainty (Dlakavu, 2021:33). From the
abovementioned, the intersection of Realism and Leader Image theory to guide
this study, offers a compelling and rational framework for understanding this
study’s focus, the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, which Realism regards as U.S.
pursuits of geopolitical and economic interests. Whereas the Leader Image
theory highlights Trump’s individual capacity in influencing his
interventionist motives.
This demonstrates how Realism
and the Leader Image theory complement each other, in revealing how the
characteristics of an individual leader and motives are aligned to realist
tenets, which in the context of the study, it will display how this
complementary intersection is necessary to analyze Trump’s Venezuela
intervention as a mixture of power projection and personal political influence
and desire to maintain a strong leader image.
In summary of the
aforementioned, this section has managed to lay the theoretical foundation
necessary for promoting understanding of the U.S. intervention in Venezuela
through the realist paradigm and Leader Image theory. By explaining the tenets
of Realism and highlighting its relevance in explaining state behaviour(s) and
their pursuit for power and securing their respective self and strategic
interests. Furthermore, it paves the way section three and four, whereby the
analysis of U.S. strategic interests in Venezuela will be accounted for in
detail and offer historical precedents from previous administrations.
3. Preliminary
Literature Review
The U.S. intervention in Venezuela
has sparked intense debates across academia, with scholars from different
political affiliations arguing over the motivations behind Trump’s move. Accounting
for differentiated views, some scholars and researchers deemed the U.S.
intervention as a necessary step to address the crisis in Venezuela, others have
regarded it as direct and serious violation of sovereignty and international
law (Ndzendze, 2026: Internet). This section will be reviewing existing
literature on the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, and the scholarly arguments
and debates which have discussed this intervention.
At first Trump alluded that
the U.S. intervention in Venezuela was motivated by drug-trafficking, which has
created alarming discontentment amongst scholars. Roth (2026: Internet)
blatantly refutes this and states that even so, drug-trafficking does not
warrant for the U.S. invasion and arrest of Maduro. But the partial truth to
this invasion lies in the individual Trump is and the powers vested in him as
the president, as the U.S. constitution declares that indeed the president is
warranted the authority to exercise his powers as Commander in Chief superintend(s) the military
(Krass, 2011:6-7). Krass (2011:6) further notes that “the President has the power to
commit United States troops abroad, as well as to take military action, for the
purpose of protecting important ‘national interests’, even without
specific prior authorization from Congress”.
This
quote of the U.S. constitution by Kross (2011), displays that the subtle yet
entrenched, accurate, and prioritized realist characteristics, are visible even
in the most Liberal states, such as the U.S., which its constitution approves
of presidents utilizing their power to attain and secure its national interests
even at the cost of sidelining liberal principles. Furthermore, Roth (2026:
Internet) contends that some scholars have regarded Trump’s intervention in Venezuela
as part of the United Nations (UN) Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept. According
to Dlakavu (2018:35) the UN only permits for the R2P concept to be enacted and
utilized when there is a violation of state sovereignty and if a state fails to
protect itself, or itself violates the human rights of its citizens.
Furthermore,
under the R2P concept sovereignty is understood as a conditional right
belonging to a state so long as it is able to protect its citizens and their
human rights (Dlakavu, 2018:35). However, according to Amnesty International
(2026: Internet) the latter is applicable to Venezuela, as there have been
various reports of human rights violations in Venezuela. Hassan (2026:
Internet) alludes that the lack of respect and deprivation of human rights such
as democratic elections and repression of dissent; judicial independence; food
and health accessibility; freedom of expression; and women’s and girl’s rights.
Cognizant of these human rights factors, at first for Trump this became the
reason to carry out the intervention in Venezuela, prior to disclosing his
initial ulterior motives after apprehending Maduro.
Ndzendze
(2026: Internet) and Letswalo (2026: Internet) take this a notch further with
their respective complimentary contributions. Ndzendze’s analysis introduces a
different approach to the U.S. Venezuelan intervention, with Ndzendze divorcing
his analysis exercising the victim card for Maduro and explores a direction
which most scholars have not delved into. Ndzendze’s analysis provides a mirror
perspective, inviting the audience to also look into Maduro’s expansionist
motives. Ndzendze (2026: Internet) alludes that Maduro and his predecessor have
blatantly chosen to ignore the directives of international law in their
expansionist quest in Guyana’s Essequibo region where there are significant oil
reserves.
Against
this backdrop, Ndzendze explores the commonalities and distinctions between the
U.S. president Trump and Venezuelan president Maduro, by demonstrating that
their respective pursuits for oil, illustrate what Realism and the Leader Image
theory posit that individual leader’s utilize their state capacities to pursue
and secure their own interests even at the expense of international norms, and
states with better capacity will always have an edge over those with less or without,
in attaining their desired interests (Ndzendze, 2026: Internet; Prah, 2017:1;
Majola, 2024:43). This is validated by Trump’s successful intervention and
securing of Venezuelan oil reserves for the interest of the U.S., whilst Maduro
only achieved spreading out newly drawn maps to schools which include Guyana
(Ndzendze, 2026: Internet).
Whereas
Letswalo (2026: Internet) explores a direct approach which also taps into the
historical context, and posits that the U.S. has a history of interventions
such as Venezuela, which upon deeper scholarly analysis become clear that they
were about U.S. interests and riven by the desire to control oil resources and
protect American economic interests and dominance, and had nothing to do with
humanitarian concerns or objectives, as former U.S. would disguise them. What
apparent from the contributions provided by Ndzendze and Letswalo, is their
demonstration of the significance of oil and not just for the U.S. but even for
small nation-states such as Venezuela, as it is regarded as strategic resource
for any economy.
From
the aforementioned, the scholarly debates and analysis of the U.S. intervention
in Venezuela explored in this literature review reveal that Trump’s initial
accusations of drug-trafficking to validate for his ordered intervention in
Venezuela have been widely refuted by scholars and researchers. Instead, this
chapter also pointed to the U.S. Constitution as a contributing factor for the
actions of Trump and his predecessors, as it warrants presiding presidents the
power to secure and protect national interests without any other
considerations, as a plausible explanation for their expansionist and
interventionist motives. Additionally, this chapter also highlighted how some
scholars regard and link the intervention UN's R2P concept, with some arguing
that Venezuela's human rights violations justify external intervention by the
U.S.
Subsequently,
the chapter proceeded to utilize Ndzendze and Letswalo's analyses to illustrate
the significance of oil and its influence in shaping foreign policies, with
both Trump and Maduro prioritizing their own interests over international norms.
Thus, demonstrating that this was a thinly veiled attempt to secure U.S. oil
interests, as usual. In conclusion, the U.S. intervention in Venezuela reflects
a broader pattern of prioritizing national interests over international norms.
3. Self-Interests
& Strategic Interests
Realists from their different
strands (Classical, Neo, Offensive, Defensive) collectively posit that states
are primarily motivated by self-interest and the pursuit of power in this
anarchic global landscape. Therefore, this notion and framework suggests that
past U.S. interventions in countries like Panama, Afganistan, Iraq and Kuwait were
also driven by strategic interests, such as securing oil supplies and protecting
and strengthening U.S. global influence (Ndzendze, 2026: Internet; Letswalo,
2026: Internet). However, when examined through a realist lens, it’s valid to
regard the actions of the U.S. as predictable responses to the demands of the
international system's, whereby states prioritize survival and dominance.
By examining U.S.
interventions through Realism and Leader Image, a pattern emerges exemplifying
that U.S. leaders often prioritize strategic interests, whilst masking moral and
humanitarian justifications. This interplay between structural realist
pressures and individual leader characteristics provides a compelling
explanation for U.S. foreign policy behavior, reinforcing Realism's accuracy in
predicting state behaviours.
“We’re
protecting Kuwait, not chasing oil” – George H.W. Bush, 1991
“We’re
here to establish democracy in Iraq, we don’t need oil” – George W. Bush,
2003
“We’re
attacking Venezuela for oil, they stole our oil and we want it back” –
Donald Trump, 2026
Like President Trump, his
predecessors George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush often prioritized policy
choices, which often reflected realist priorities. The above quotes, demonstrate
that at face value the Bush presidents often hid their ulterior motives under
the guise of promoting democracy and stability (Letswalo, 2026: Internet). For
instance, Trump's direct approach to Venezuela's oil reserves aligns with
realist notions of pursuing national interests, demonstrating how
leader-specific traits can drive policy in line with broader structural
pressures (Letswalo, 2026: Internet).
Hegemony
by Force: The United States and the Politics of Intervention
The unilateral military action
undertaken by the U.S. in Venezuela, culminating in the apprehension of
President Nicolas Maduro, has precipitated a seismic shift in the global
geopolitical landscape. However, a cursory examination of historical precedent
reveals a disquieting pattern of militaristic interventions executed by the
U.S., rendering this latest development a déja vu of sorts, an iteration of a
familiar narrative though with a changed cast of characters. Political
instabilities and drug trafficking within the Latin America region have been used
as accusations and excuses as to why the region has been a regular site for
U.S. interventions in the past till contemporarily. As Letswalo (2026:
Internet) attests that upon embarking on interventionist agendas, the U.S. has continuously
employed ambiguous rhetoric to justify its military interventionist objectives.
For
the longest time, the U.S. has managed to create a unipolar global structuring
which systematically positioned it as a global leader, by often using the
rhetoric of democracy, collective security, and humanitarian duty to
rationalize its actions and supposed leadership status on the world stage. This
self-perception is deeply ingrained in American foreign policy discussions,
frequently articulated through ideals of promoting liberal democracy,
safeguarding human rights, and upholding a rules-based international order.
From presidential doctrines to multilateral engagements, U.S. leadership has
been consistently portrayed as both essential and benevolent - a crucial force
for global stability.
Yet,
a more thorough historical and strategic analysis complicates this narrative.
Beneath the normative language lies a more persistent and structurally
ingrained pattern: the consistent reliance on military power as a tool for
advancing national interests and influencing political outcomes beyond its
borders. Rather than being exceptional or reactive, the use of force appears as
a recurring element of U.S. foreign policy by both Republican and Democrats
during different administrations, ideological stances, and historical periods.
From early territorial expansion to modern counterterrorism operations,
military intervention has served not only as a means of defence but also as a
mechanism of influence, which often extends into the domestic political, economic,
and institutional frameworks of sovereign states.
This
pattern is particularly notable when viewed quantitatively. With 469 documented
military interventions between 1798 and 2022, including 251 since the Cold
War's conclusion, the frequency and scale of U.S. military involvement abroad
are unmatched in modern international relations (Osimen & Newo, 2025).
Notably, most of these interventions have occurred without formal war
declarations, indicating a shift toward more flexible, and sometimes ambiguous,
forms of coercive engagement. These range from large-scale invasions and
occupations to limited strikes, covert operations, and military assistance
programs, which individually contribute to varying extents, to the projection
of American power.
These
empirical realities raise fundamental questions about the nature of
contemporary hegemony. If hegemony is understood not merely as leadership but
as the ability to shape the rules, norms, and trajectories of the international
system, then the U.S. case suggests a model heavily reliant on coercive
capacity. The persistence of interventionism, even in the absence of direct
existential threats, points to a broader strategic logic - one that prioritizes
geopolitical dominance, economic interests, and global influence, sometimes at
the expense of state sovereignty and non-interference principles. In this
context, American hegemony cannot be fully comprehended through its stated
ideals alone. It must also be examined through its practices - particularly the
repeated use of military force and its consequences for the political autonomy
of other states.
A Historical Pattern of Expansion and Control
From
its inception, U.S. foreign policy has been closely linked with military
projection. Nineteenth-century conflicts like the Mexican-American War and the
Spanish-American War led to territorial growth and the acquisition of overseas
territories, embedding a strategy of external dominance into American
statecraft (Pinheiro, 2022). These interventions were not solely defensive but
were crucial in securing economic routes, strategic territories, and political
influence.
The
twentieth century further entrenched this trajectory. While involvement in
World War I and World War II is often seen as part of a larger international
struggle, later interventions reveal a more unilateral approach. Conflicts such
as the Vietnam War and the Korean War, along with repeated occupations in Latin
America, show a readiness to directly intervene in the political affairs of
other countries under the pretext of containment, stability, or ideological
rivalry.
Post-Cold War Unipolarity and the Expansion of
Interventionism
The
conclusion of the Cold War saw the United States emerge as the world's sole
superpower. Instead of leading to a more restrained foreign policy, this
unipolar moment coincided with an increase in military interventions, spanning
from the Balkans to the Middle East and Africa. Operations in Somalia, Bosnia,
Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya highlight a continued reliance on force as
a foreign policy tool. The Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are particularly
illustrative.
Both
interventions were justified on security grounds - counterterrorism and the
elimination of weapons of mass destruction - yet their long-term effects
destabilized entire regions. The Iraq case, in particular, exemplifies what
Colin Powell famously referred to as the "Pottery Barn rule":
"you break it, you own it" (Kavanagh, Frederick, Povlock, Pettyjohn,
Omahony, Watts, Chandler, Meyers & Han, 2018). However, the reality of U.S.
interventions often contradicts this notion. Instead of assuming ongoing responsibility,
interventions frequently lead to partial disengagement, leaving behind fragile
states, power vacuums, and prolonged conflict.
Strategies of Control: From Warfighting to “Winning
Hearts and Minds”
The
strategies of U.S. military operations have changed over time, yet the
fundamental goals have remained the same. Whether engaging in large-scale
conflicts or adopting counterinsurgency tactics like "clear, hold, and
build," the aim has consistently been to reshape political systems to
favour American interests. The counterinsurgency approach, which was formalized
in U.S. Army doctrine by leaders such as David Petraeus, focuses on controlling
populations and building states (Russel, 2014). This strategy, often described
as "winning hearts and minds," aims to foster loyalty among local
communities while establishing security structures that align with U.S. goals.
However, this method raises significant issues.
According
to scholars like Charles Tilly (2017), state formation is a complex,
historically dependent process that cannot be easily engineered through
external military interventions, which often result in artificial and unstable
political systems. Other utilized tactics, such as targeted
"decapitation" strikes against insurgent leaders, also demonstrate
similar shortcomings. Although these methods are tactically precise, they often
fail to dismantle the resilient organizational frameworks of insurgent groups,
as evidenced by their continued existence despite leadership losses. This
reliance on short-term tactical successes highlights a broader tendency to
prioritize immediate gains over long-lasting political solutions.
The Logic of Hegemonic Intervention
The
ongoing nature of U.S. military interventions cannot be fully explained by
security threats alone. Instead, it reflects a broader hegemonic rationale
influenced by various factors: maintaining global dominance, safeguarding
economic interests, and managing geopolitical influence. Interventions are more
likely to occur in strategically important regions, such as the Middle East and
South Asia, and in countries with weaker political and economic systems, where
external influence can be more easily exerted.
Domestic
factors also influence these interventions. Public opinion, military
capabilities, and political leadership determine the timing and scale of
military actions. The "America First" policy under Donald Trump
exemplifies how changes in domestic ideology can reshape foreign policy. While
Trump's approach focused on economic nationalism and scepticism toward
multilateralism, it did not fundamentally alter the core structures of American
interventionism. Instead, it redirected them, often straining alliances while
maintaining a readiness to use coercive measures like tariffs and military
force.
Legality, Morality, and the Question of Sovereignty
At
its essence, the critique of U.S. interventionism centres on its effects on
sovereignty and international law. Numerous interventions have taken place
without official war declarations or clear multilateral approval, leading to
questions about their legality. Additionally, the humanitarian reasons often
cited by U.S. policymakers are weakened by the considerable human and material
costs associated with these actions.
The
broader ethical issue lies in the conflict between stated values and actual
practices. Although the United States portrays itself as a champion of
democracy, its interventions have often supported regimes, altered political
systems, or intensified internal conflicts in ways that contradict this
narrative.
Overview: Hegemony in Action
The
historical evidence indicates that U.S. foreign policy is marked more by
continuity than by exceptionalism. Over centuries, administrations, and global
contexts, the United States has consistently used military force as a key tool
of its international engagement. This pattern reflects not just a reaction to
external threats, but a structural aspect of hegemonic power. As global power
dynamics evolve and new players emerge, the sustainability of this model
becomes increasingly uncertain. What remains evident, however, is that the
legacy of U.S. interventionism continues to influence the political, economic,
and security landscapes of regions worldwide - often in ways that challenge the
very principles of sovereignty and self-determination it professes to uphold.
4.
Conclusion
The
analysis of U.S. interventions, not just in Venezuela is a demonstration that
realist explanations remain highly accurate and persuasive in accounting for
contemporary international behaviour. Despite the prominence of humanitarian
discourse and legal frameworks such as the R2P, the study strongly attests that
U.S. actions are fundamentally driven by strategic self-interest(s) to securing
geopolitical influence and access to critical resources, as a means to
maintaining its hegemon status. Through
this backdrop, this study reflects a broader continuity in U.S. foreign policy,
where moral rhetoric serves to obscure underlying power calculations. Moreover,
the application of Leader Image theory assisted in revealing that while
systemic forces set the parameters of state action, the individuality of
leaders does significantly contribute to the shaping of how these actions are
justified and implemented.
Therefore,
in this context, President Donald Trump’s leadership style has managed to amplify
the explicitness of realist motives, in exposing what has often been more
subtly concealed by previous administrations. Ultimately, this study
underscores that U.S. intervention(s) historical and contemporary, are not an anomaly,
but rather a manifestation of enduring patterns in international politics where
power (political dominance and economic muscle), interests, and leadership
intersect. Thus, reinforcing the continued relevance of Realism in this
contemporary era.
References
Dlakavu, A. 2018. THE WEST
IN LYBIA 2011: A REALIST WAR OR AN ‘R2P’ INTERVENTION? MA. [Published].
University of Johannesburg.
Dlakavu, A. 2021. An Analysis of the post-1989
foreign policies of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States of
America: Implications for the Liberal International Order in the 21st century. PhD. [Published]. University of
Johannesburg.
Hassan,
T. 2026. Venezuela Events of 2024. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/venezuela. Accessed: 19 January 2026.
Hermann,
M.G. 2002. ASSESSING LEADERSHIP STYLE: A TRAIT ANALYSIS. Available at: https://socialscience.net/docs/LTA.pdf. Accessed: 18 January 2026.
Herrmann,
R.K., Voss, J.F., Schooler, T.Y.E., and Ciarrochi, J. 1997. Images in
international relations: An experimental test of cognitive schemata. International
Studies Quarterly, 41, pp.422-424.
Kegley, C.W. 1995. Controversies
in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge. New
York: St. Martin’s
Krass, C.D. 2011. AUTHORITY
TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN LIBYA. Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel,
35, pp.6-7.
Letswalo, N. 2026. US strike
on Venezuela: It’s always been about the oil. Available at: https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/sunday-world-8839/20260118/281775635556599.
Accessed: 18 January 2026.
Majola,
B. 2024. Are Sino-Africa Relations Mutually Beneficial for Africa? The Cases of
South Africa and Zambia. Journal of BRICS Studies, 3(2), pp.43.
Ndzendze, B. 2026. Maduro’s no perfect victim — he,
too, wanted to invade a less powerful oil-rich nation. Available at: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2026-01-14-maduros-no-perfect-victim-he-too-wantedwanted-to-invade-a-less-powerful-oilrich/. Accessed: 18 January 2026.
OSINT
Intelligence Report. 2026. OSINT Intelligence Report – US Military
Intervention in Venezuela. Internal open-source intelligence assessment,
January 2026. Unpublished document.
Prah,
K.D.L.S. and Gumede, V. 2017. Africa-China Partnerships and Relations:
African Perspectives. Trenton: New Jersey.
Roth,
K. 2026. Trump’s Venezuela invasion sets a perilous precedent. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/05/donald-trump-venezuela-nicolas-maduro. Accessed: 19 January 2026.
Tickner, A. 1988. Hans
Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation. Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, 17(3), pp. 429-437.
Comments
Post a Comment