“Another Monroe Doctrine”: Journalists Warn U.S. Strikes on Venezuela Signal a New Era of Intervention

By Joshua Scheer, January 5, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/01/05/another-monroe-doctrine-journalists-warn-u-s-strikes-on-venezuela-signal-a-new-era-of-intervention/

ith reporting from the streets of Caracas and analysis from Vijay Prashad, BreakThrough News breaks down what’s unfolding in Venezuela — from local resistance to the United States’ emerging new Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuelan journalist Andreína Chávez Alava, reporting from Caracas, describes the aftermath of the U.S. strikes and the capture of President Maduro. According to her reporting, local communities are organizing, following guidance from authorities, and preparing to “resist in the streets” in a show of solidarity. Chávez characterizes the attack as “an illegal U.S. bombing against a civilian population” and frames it as part of a broader effort to force regime change and assert control over Venezuela’s political direction and oil resources. She also warns that the operation may mark the opening phase of a wider U.S. campaign in Latin America, referring to it as “another Monroe Doctrine,” and says she intends to “continue denouncing by every means necessary” what she views as an assault on Venezuela.

In an interview from Caracas, Venezuelan journalist Andrea Nach Chavez describes the aftermath of a pre-dawn U.S. military attack on Venezuela, reporting that strikes hit multiple locations, including residential areas—contradicting Washington’s claim that only military targets were struck. Chavez asserts that President Nicolás Maduro has been kidnapped by the United States, rejecting U.S. narratives of an arrest or lawful capture and calling for proof of life and his immediate return.

Chavez reports that crowds have gathered in the streets of Caracas, not in celebration—as some Western outlets have suggested—but in solidarity and outrage, denouncing the attack as an illegal act of war and a renewed attempt at regime change aimed at seizing control of Venezuela’s oil resources. She dismisses U.S. claims about democracy promotion and drug trafficking as long-standing pretexts for intervention.

The interview also addresses what Chavez describes as a coordinated campaign of psychological warfare and misinformation, particularly on social media, contrasting it with the Venezuelan government’s insistence that Maduro remains the country’s legitimate president and its call for popular and institutional resistance.

Contrary to portrayals of chaos, Chavez describes a population responding with calm vigilance: businesses largely closed, communities checking on one another, and people focused on securing essentials rather than celebrating political upheaval. She emphasizes that years of U.S. sanctions—especially the devastating measures imposed in 2017–2018 that crippled the oil industry and triggered a humanitarian crisis—have hardened Venezuela’s capacity for resilience and self-organization.

Chavez points to community-based food distribution programs and renewed domestic production as evidence that Venezuela has become less vulnerable to external pressure. She concludes by stressing the strength of the civilian-military alliance and the necessity of international solidarity from Latin America and the Global South, warning that the current assault signals a broader U.S. interventionist strategy rooted in a revived Monroe Doctrine. The interviewer underscores the critical role of independent and community journalists in countering Western media narratives and documenting events on the ground.

Vijay Prashad, Executive Director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research, offers his analysis of the U.S. strikes on Venezuela and the capture of President Maduro. In his view, the operation is driven by Washington’s long‑standing interest in controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves and weakening the Bolivarian Revolution. Prashad describes what he calls the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, placing the current actions within a broader historical pattern of U.S. intervention in Latin America. He also warns that Trump’s recent claim that the United States will “run Venezuela” could lead to what he characterizes as “a worse fiasco than Iraq.”

Prashad interprets Trump’s remarks not merely as bluster but as an implicit admission that Washington lacks a viable civilian proxy capable of governing Venezuela. He points to the political weakness and internal divisions of the U.S.-backed opposition—particularly the inability of figures like María Corina Machado to consolidate power—as well as the reconvening of Venezuela’s National Assembly, which complicates U.S. plans for a clean political handover.

Drawing on Trump’s past criticisms of the Iraq War, Prashad recalls Trump’s argument that the U.S. should have directly seized Iraq’s oil to finance the occupation. He notes that the legal groundwork for U.S. intervention in Venezuela predates Trump, tracing it to a 2015 Obama-era executive order that declared Venezuela a national security threat—an order Trump has expanded and weaponized.

While skeptical of the U.S. capacity to directly govern Venezuela—given catastrophic failures in Iraq and Afghanistan—Prashad warns that Trump’s rhetoric cannot be dismissed as harmless. Even limited intervention, he argues, could result in a debacle surpassing previous U.S. military disasters.

The discussion situates recent U.S. military strikes and electronic warfare operations in the Caribbean within a broader strategic doctrine. Prashad explains that Trump’s national security strategy revives the Monroe Doctrine, asserting unilateral U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere—a doctrine he describes as updated through a “Trump corollary” that justifies intervention by any means necessary. He likens recent operations to the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, suggesting a similar strategy of overwhelming force combined with symbolic spectacle.

Prashad further argues that Venezuela is only one node in a larger destabilization strategy aimed at isolating Nicaragua and Cuba, while facilitating a regional political shift. He points to the decline of Latin America’s “pink tide” governments and the rise of an “angry tide” of right-wing regimes, warning that upcoming elections in countries like Brazil and Colombia could further consolidate this shift.

Addressing economic justifications for intervention, Prashad rebuts claims—such as those made by Stephen Miller—that Venezuelan oil constitutes stolen “American wealth.” He explains that the Chávez government did not nationalize oil outright, but instead asserted greater state control over surplus extraction through the 2001 hydrocarbons law. The framing of Venezuelan oil as inherently American, he notes, has long been central to U.S. policy, reinforced by figures like Rex Tillerson, the former ExxonMobil CEO and Trump’s secretary of state.

Prashad emphasizes that U.S. interest in Venezuela is not driven by domestic energy needs—since the U.S. is a major oil exporter—but by the desire to control global energy flows and prevent oil revenues from supporting left-wing governments or international solidarity efforts, such as aid to Haiti.

In closing, Prashad offers a personal reflection on President Maduro, describing him as a reluctant leader who inherited a historic crisis rather than seeking power. He cautions against sections of the left abandoning Maduro without reckoning with the broader structures of imperial power at play. The discussion concludes with a call to engage with Tricontinental’s research on hyperimperialism and the shifting political terrain of Latin America and the Global South.