Washington, D.C. – The United States government significantly ramped up its covert and overt efforts to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power in recent years, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. These efforts, which spanned economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and alleged behind-the-scenes support for opposition forces, represent a concerted push to destabilize the Maduro regime and install a more democratically oriented government in Caracas.
The campaign, which ultimately proved unsuccessful in achieving its primary goal, involved a complex web of actors, including the State Department, the Treasury Department, intelligence agencies, and private contractors, all working, ostensibly, to restore democracy and stability to the oil-rich nation.
One key component of the strategy was the implementation of increasingly stringent economic sanctions. Starting in 2015, the U.S. Treasury Department began targeting Venezuelan officials accused of corruption and human rights abuses. These sanctions escalated over time, eventually encompassing entire sectors of the Venezuelan economy, including the state-owned oil company PDVSA, a critical source of revenue for the Maduro government. The intent was to cripple the regime's financial resources and force it to negotiate a transition of power.
"The sanctions were designed to put maximum pressure on the Maduro regime and create the conditions for a peaceful democratic transition," said a former State Department official involved in the policy, speaking on condition of anonymity. "We believed that by cutting off access to funds, we could force Maduro to the negotiating table."
However, the sanctions also drew criticism from some quarters, who argued that they disproportionately harmed the Venezuelan people, exacerbating the country's humanitarian crisis and fueling mass emigration. Critics also pointed out the limited effectiveness of the measures in achieving their stated political goals.
Beyond economic pressure, the U.S. government also engaged in intense diplomatic efforts to isolate Maduro internationally. The U.S. recognized Juan Guaidó, the president of the opposition-controlled National Assembly, as the legitimate interim president of Venezuela in January 2019, a move that was followed by dozens of other countries. This recognition provided Guaidó with a platform to rally international support and challenge Maduro's authority.
The U.S. also actively lobbied other countries to impose sanctions on Venezuela and to support Guaidó's claim to the presidency. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled extensively throughout Latin America and Europe, urging governments to take a tougher stance against Maduro.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the U.S. strategy involved alleged covert operations aimed at destabilizing the Maduro regime. While the specifics remain murky, reports have surfaced detailing the involvement of private security contractors in plots to overthrow Maduro, including a failed incursion in May 2020 known as "Operation Gideon."
The U.S. government has consistently denied any direct involvement in these plots, but critics argue that its rhetoric and actions created an environment in which such activities were more likely to occur.
"The U.S. government bears a significant responsibility for the instability in Venezuela," said Geoff Ramsey, a Venezuela expert at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). "Its policy of regime change, coupled with its strong support for the opposition, has emboldened hardliners and made a negotiated solution more difficult."
Despite the multifaceted U.S. efforts, Maduro has managed to remain in power, albeit at the cost of a severely weakened economy and widespread social unrest. The country continues to grapple with hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and a massive exodus of its citizens.
The failure of the U.S. strategy has prompted a reassessment of Washington's approach to Venezuela. The Biden administration has signaled a willingness to engage in dialogue with the Maduro government, albeit with strict conditions related to human rights and democratic reforms.
Whether this new approach will prove more successful than its predecessor remains to be seen, but it underscores the complex challenges involved in addressing the political and economic crisis in Venezuela. The situation highlights the limitations of external intervention and the need for a more nuanced and locally driven solution to the country's problems.
