The military execution itself was remarkable in its precision, though hardly unexpected. The United States remains the only nation capable of projecting decisive force anywhere in the world while coordinating complex joint operations. Our advantages are overwhelming: superior weapons systems, unmatched intelligence, global logistics, and, above all, the finest-trained military personnel on earth. Once again, America’s men and women in uniform demonstrated extraordinary professionalism and discipline. Their performance deserves recognition and gratitude.
What truly startled me, however, was not the military operation but what followed. During the press conference immediately following the strike, President Trump stated plainly that the United States is now going to run Venezuela, seemingly countering MAGA’s isolationist philosophy. Despite predictable objections from Democrats, the administration appears to be operating within solid legal and constitutional authority for the initial action. Unless Congress intervenes, there are few practical barriers to moving forward. This situation is evolving rapidly, but two implications already stand out.
President Trump has again demonstrated that military power remains an essential instrument of American statecraft when vital interests are at stake. Conservatives have always believed in putting America first; the real debate has never been whether force should be used, but when and how. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement—mirroring progressive skepticism—now finds itself sidelined. If Venezuela descends into chaos, critics will claim vindication. But if this effort succeeds, reflexive isolationism will suffer a serious blow.
American foreign policy has in recent times swung between extremes. On one side lies the belief that foreign societies can be reshaped into Western democracies through military intervention. On the other is the conviction that overseas engagement inevitably leads to endless wars. Both views are flawed. Prudence, realism, and strategic clarity have always offered a better path. Trump’s decisive action has forced a reckoning: when applied carefully, strategic force can still shape outcomes leading us, as the WSJ did this weekend, to ask if we are all NeoCons now.
That political debate, however, is secondary. The larger question is whether this moment marks a shift in the global balance of power. By removing Maduro, the United States has not merely toppled a dictator; it has taken a calculated gamble on reshaping the geopolitical landscape. Nation-building is inherently risky, and President Trump has repeatedly warned against it. Yet here, the potential rewards may justify the danger.
The reason is straightforward: oil means power. Europe’s prolonged stagnation has many causes, but its self-destructive embrace of radical environmentalism has been significant. The United States does not need Venezuelan oil. China, however, desperately does—and much of its energy supply also flows from Iran.
Iran now faces mounting pressure: internal unrest, Israeli action, and the real possibility of U.S. support for protestors if the regime responds with mass violence. Regime change, once unthinkable, now appears plausible. In Tehran’s case, the “devil you know” already sponsors terrorism, destabilizes the region, and empowers China. It is difficult to imagine a worse alternative.
A friendly Iranian government, combined with American influence in Venezuela and renewed cooperation with Saudi Arabia, would significantly constrain China’s ability to sustain a major conflict, particularly over Taiwan. Oil remains the lifeblood of modern power, and both Washington and Beijing understand this reality.
Russia also figures prominently. Its war in Ukraine depends heavily on energy profits. If Venezuela produces oil at scale under a U.S.-aligned government, sustained low prices could sharply limit Moscow’s ability to project power. Lower energy costs would also ease inflation and restore confidence at home.
Then there is Cuba. Long sustained by Venezuelan oil and Russian backing, Havana now looks increasingly vulnerable. With Syria gone and Venezuela lost, Cuba may be the next domino, as Mr. Rubio suggested. Its fall would transform the Western Hemisphere and disrupt criminal networks across the region.
None of this is guaranteed. The risks are real. But imagine a world in which Venezuela becomes a stable energy producer, Cuba reforms, Iran abandons terrorism, and Russia is economically constrained. China would find itself increasingly isolated. Yet hope is not a strategy, and Mr. Trump’s bold, unconventional, and inherently risky choice could backfire—yet it may also pave the way to a much safer world.
Donald Trump thrives outside the box. This move goes far beyond it. If he and Marco Rubio succeed, the consequences could rival the fall of the Berlin Wall. The stakes could not be higher.
Jeffrey Haymond is the dean of the Robert W. Plaster School of Business at Cedarville University.