US Pushing of ‘Venezuela Model’ Will Invite Inevitable Backlash
No sooner had 2026 begun than the Trump administration used its “Venezuela model” as a starting point from which to go on the warpath with actions leading to a proliferation of geopolitical flashpoints at the international and regional levels. Determined to project an iron fist on the international stage, the administration is seeking to demonstrate that, under its leadership, the United States still exerts significant global influence.
At the same time, the United States has been facing successive crises at home: Amid devastating blizzards and the Minnesota killings, and with the midterm elections looming, both parties have been dropping one bombshell after the next, engaging in frenzied contests and even wagers against each other over “political capital.” From threats of another government shutdown to the Epstein case, and despite the fires burning on both the domestic and international fronts, the Trump administration has not shrunk from its battle lines. Instead, it has continued to prioritize foreign policy in service of domestic affairs and step up the pace at which it provokes external disputes. The tactic is the forceful promotion of what is referred to as the “Venezuela model.”
The Venezuela model is the United States’ use of military force, its disregard for national sovereignty, and its interference in the internal affairs of other countries — essentially “neo-Monroeism.” Will the Trump administration defy the odds at the risk of making enemies on all sides? Or will it accelerate in its headlong slide toward an irreversible collapse? These are questions of some magnitude. What this article will argue is that Washington’s current promotion of the Venezuela model (an aggressive approach that takes “America First” as its yardstick and seeks to command the world accordingly) will inevitably face backlash from the international community, since an unjust cause finds little support.
Implementing and Intensifying the Venezuela Model
Following the surprise military raid on Venezuela, the “kidnapping” of its president, and the circumvention of the U.N. Security Council in announcing the establishment of a “Board of Peace,” the United States has intensified its promotion of the Venezuela model. In addition to forcibly laying claim to Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark), pressuring Canada into becoming the 51st state, dispatching a congressional delegation to Alberta to signal support for separatist forces there, and threatening further tariff increases on countries that are not complying with U.S. wishes, the United States is upping the ante in its promotion of the Venezuela model. The most striking manifestation of this is in its deliberate stoking of regional wars in the Middle East.
Current American policy toward Iran has shifted: What in 2025 involved sustained military pressure, avoidance of direct conflict, limiting Iran’s nuclear program through agreements and containing its regional influence through conventional military presence — the “dual deterrence” approach — has given way to issuing threats of direct military action against Iran. For the sake of demonstrating its capacity to shape regional wars and reinforce its own influence, and to signal that American diplomacy has fully pivoted toward the “Peace Through Strength” doctrine, Washington is driving the Middle East to the brink of war. The United States can now take unilateral and unabashed military action against a sovereign nation, and it intends to continue extending this model to other regions. It has declared its intention to ride roughshod over the world, applying the “law of the jungle.”
Defiance of International Law and Rejection of the International Community’s Moral Constraints
U.S. self-confidence is somewhat overblown. The prevailing view among the international community is that while American hegemony still exists, it is now in a state of relative decline. But that is not something the United States is about to acknowledge.
Paradoxically, however, the Trump administration is acting unilaterally on the international stage and with scant regard for the views of others, engaging in adventurism and the extensive use of extreme pressure tactics, its real purpose largely being to attempt to reverse the trend and put on a display of renewed strength. A prominent feature of this is that U.S. foreign policy no longer abides by international law, no longer accepts the moral constraints of the international community, and is even less concerned with international uproar.
Following the Venezuelan crisis, for example, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres issued a statement on Jan. 3, 2026 regarding U.S. actions, declaring that they would exacerbate global and regional instability. Emphasizing that the United Nations’ purpose was to resolutely uphold international law with the U.N. Charter at its core, Guterres stressed its prohibition of the use of force against the sovereignty of other countries or to threaten the territorial integrity or political independence of member states.
The United States’ political reaction was one of contempt and disdain, choosing to continue pursuing its Venezuela model. Subsequent crises, including those in Colombia in South America, Greenland in the Arctic, Canada in North America, and the aforementioned one in the Middle East, all signal that Washington has no intention of backing down.
Furthermore, the United States has openly positioned itself in opposition to the international community, dispensing with any moral facade as a diplomatic tool. In a Jan. 9 interview with New York Times White House correspondent Katie Rogers, Trump bluntly stated, “I don’t need international law,” and regarding the limits to global power, he claimed that the only constraint came from “my own morality.” What this implies is that, for the sake of “Make America Great Again,” the United States can disregard the U.N. Charter, violate the sovereignty of independent nations, and plunder other countries’ resources with no moral qualms in the slightest. This is a departure from traditional Western diplomatic and cultural values, and it is a departure from American diplomacy itself.
Inevitable Backlash
The Venezuela model is proof positive that the United States’ grand strategy has shifted toward focusing on power and security, implemented in more exclusive, confrontational, coercive and predatory fashion. Its goal is the pursuit of a return to unipolar hegemony, accompanied by territorial expansion and the plundering of resources. From the perspective of international relations theory, this unrestrained “America First” approach will exacerbate the already anarchic state of the international community.
Regarding the United States' imposition of the Venezuela model, security concerns include, first, that it will encourage other regional powers to follow suit, triggering conflict diffusion and an arms race. Second, disrespect for and circumvention of the United Nations will lead to disruptions in regional order and more frequent conflicts. And third, the security landscape will change, with countries’ national security entering broader “uncharted waters,” thus leading to an increased risk of war. Politically, U.S. abandonment of a moral facade as a diplomatic tool will affect normal relations between countries. And economically, insatiable American greed is bound to meet with resistance sooner or later. So far, the United States’ forceful promotion of the Venezuela model has already backfired, broadly summarized as follows:
First of all, “Fortress North America” has come apart at the seams. The Trump administration’s efforts at pushing the United States, Canada, and Mexico to jointly impose tariffs on China, curb Chinese goods, and disrupt China’s supply chains have become untenable. On top of that, not only has Canada — the United States’ neighbor — resisted American economic and financial hegemony, but it has also undertaken a renewed assessment of its own security. Canada has adjusted its defense policy, and the impact of this is not to be underestimated.
Second, Europe has shown signs of policy coordination. Europe is not a fully unified entity, and the Russia-Ukraine war has further highlighted the drawbacks of its fragmented state. On the issue of Greenland’s sovereignty, however, it has adopted a rarely seen unified stance against the U.S. attempt to claim Greenland for itself. On the economic front, the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom have visited China in succession, each expressing the importance they attach to the Eastern market.
The New York Times described this trend as a major reshuffling of U.S.-European politics, which, in fact, is a veiled reference to how unity within Europe gets stronger when one of its countries or regions faces a crisis. It goes without saying that the emergence of policy coordination in European diplomacy and economics has therefore become a thorn in Washington’s side.
And finally, there is the considerable challenge of discussing the backlash coming from the Middle East. Due to the large number of states in the region, the distinctive political and economic relations between them, the legacy of colonial rule, the complex relationship between the United States, Israel and Iran and their deep entanglement with domestic American politics, no further comment will be offered for now, and readers may draw their own conclusions.
Conclusion
The backlash that is currently emerging demonstrates the unsustainability of the Venezuela model and how the United States’ promotion of it will inevitably meet with resistance. In the medium to long term, this approach will not usher in a “new order” dominated by the United States. Rather, it will leave the United States with little support for its morally compromised cause.
The author is a research fellow at the Shanghai Association for Taiwan Studies.
At the same time, the United States has been facing successive crises at home: Amid devastating blizzards and the Minnesota killings, and with the midterm elections looming, both parties have been dropping one bombshell after the next, engaging in frenzied contests and even wagers against each other over “political capital.” From threats of another government shutdown to the Epstein case, and despite the fires burning on both the domestic and international fronts, the Trump administration has not shrunk from its battle lines. Instead, it has continued to prioritize foreign policy in service of domestic affairs and step up the pace at which it provokes external disputes. The tactic is the forceful promotion of what is referred to as the “Venezuela model.”
The Venezuela model is the United States’ use of military force, its disregard for national sovereignty, and its interference in the internal affairs of other countries — essentially “neo-Monroeism.” Will the Trump administration defy the odds at the risk of making enemies on all sides? Or will it accelerate in its headlong slide toward an irreversible collapse? These are questions of some magnitude. What this article will argue is that Washington’s current promotion of the Venezuela model (an aggressive approach that takes “America First” as its yardstick and seeks to command the world accordingly) will inevitably face backlash from the international community, since an unjust cause finds little support.
Implementing and Intensifying the Venezuela Model
Following the surprise military raid on Venezuela, the “kidnapping” of its president, and the circumvention of the U.N. Security Council in announcing the establishment of a “Board of Peace,” the United States has intensified its promotion of the Venezuela model. In addition to forcibly laying claim to Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark), pressuring Canada into becoming the 51st state, dispatching a congressional delegation to Alberta to signal support for separatist forces there, and threatening further tariff increases on countries that are not complying with U.S. wishes, the United States is upping the ante in its promotion of the Venezuela model. The most striking manifestation of this is in its deliberate stoking of regional wars in the Middle East.
Current American policy toward Iran has shifted: What in 2025 involved sustained military pressure, avoidance of direct conflict, limiting Iran’s nuclear program through agreements and containing its regional influence through conventional military presence — the “dual deterrence” approach — has given way to issuing threats of direct military action against Iran. For the sake of demonstrating its capacity to shape regional wars and reinforce its own influence, and to signal that American diplomacy has fully pivoted toward the “Peace Through Strength” doctrine, Washington is driving the Middle East to the brink of war. The United States can now take unilateral and unabashed military action against a sovereign nation, and it intends to continue extending this model to other regions. It has declared its intention to ride roughshod over the world, applying the “law of the jungle.”
Defiance of International Law and Rejection of the International Community’s Moral Constraints
U.S. self-confidence is somewhat overblown. The prevailing view among the international community is that while American hegemony still exists, it is now in a state of relative decline. But that is not something the United States is about to acknowledge.
Paradoxically, however, the Trump administration is acting unilaterally on the international stage and with scant regard for the views of others, engaging in adventurism and the extensive use of extreme pressure tactics, its real purpose largely being to attempt to reverse the trend and put on a display of renewed strength. A prominent feature of this is that U.S. foreign policy no longer abides by international law, no longer accepts the moral constraints of the international community, and is even less concerned with international uproar.
Following the Venezuelan crisis, for example, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres issued a statement on Jan. 3, 2026 regarding U.S. actions, declaring that they would exacerbate global and regional instability. Emphasizing that the United Nations’ purpose was to resolutely uphold international law with the U.N. Charter at its core, Guterres stressed its prohibition of the use of force against the sovereignty of other countries or to threaten the territorial integrity or political independence of member states.
The United States’ political reaction was one of contempt and disdain, choosing to continue pursuing its Venezuela model. Subsequent crises, including those in Colombia in South America, Greenland in the Arctic, Canada in North America, and the aforementioned one in the Middle East, all signal that Washington has no intention of backing down.
Furthermore, the United States has openly positioned itself in opposition to the international community, dispensing with any moral facade as a diplomatic tool. In a Jan. 9 interview with New York Times White House correspondent Katie Rogers, Trump bluntly stated, “I don’t need international law,” and regarding the limits to global power, he claimed that the only constraint came from “my own morality.” What this implies is that, for the sake of “Make America Great Again,” the United States can disregard the U.N. Charter, violate the sovereignty of independent nations, and plunder other countries’ resources with no moral qualms in the slightest. This is a departure from traditional Western diplomatic and cultural values, and it is a departure from American diplomacy itself.
Inevitable Backlash
The Venezuela model is proof positive that the United States’ grand strategy has shifted toward focusing on power and security, implemented in more exclusive, confrontational, coercive and predatory fashion. Its goal is the pursuit of a return to unipolar hegemony, accompanied by territorial expansion and the plundering of resources. From the perspective of international relations theory, this unrestrained “America First” approach will exacerbate the already anarchic state of the international community.
Regarding the United States' imposition of the Venezuela model, security concerns include, first, that it will encourage other regional powers to follow suit, triggering conflict diffusion and an arms race. Second, disrespect for and circumvention of the United Nations will lead to disruptions in regional order and more frequent conflicts. And third, the security landscape will change, with countries’ national security entering broader “uncharted waters,” thus leading to an increased risk of war. Politically, U.S. abandonment of a moral facade as a diplomatic tool will affect normal relations between countries. And economically, insatiable American greed is bound to meet with resistance sooner or later. So far, the United States’ forceful promotion of the Venezuela model has already backfired, broadly summarized as follows:
First of all, “Fortress North America” has come apart at the seams. The Trump administration’s efforts at pushing the United States, Canada, and Mexico to jointly impose tariffs on China, curb Chinese goods, and disrupt China’s supply chains have become untenable. On top of that, not only has Canada — the United States’ neighbor — resisted American economic and financial hegemony, but it has also undertaken a renewed assessment of its own security. Canada has adjusted its defense policy, and the impact of this is not to be underestimated.
Second, Europe has shown signs of policy coordination. Europe is not a fully unified entity, and the Russia-Ukraine war has further highlighted the drawbacks of its fragmented state. On the issue of Greenland’s sovereignty, however, it has adopted a rarely seen unified stance against the U.S. attempt to claim Greenland for itself. On the economic front, the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom have visited China in succession, each expressing the importance they attach to the Eastern market.
The New York Times described this trend as a major reshuffling of U.S.-European politics, which, in fact, is a veiled reference to how unity within Europe gets stronger when one of its countries or regions faces a crisis. It goes without saying that the emergence of policy coordination in European diplomacy and economics has therefore become a thorn in Washington’s side.
And finally, there is the considerable challenge of discussing the backlash coming from the Middle East. Due to the large number of states in the region, the distinctive political and economic relations between them, the legacy of colonial rule, the complex relationship between the United States, Israel and Iran and their deep entanglement with domestic American politics, no further comment will be offered for now, and readers may draw their own conclusions.
Conclusion
The backlash that is currently emerging demonstrates the unsustainability of the Venezuela model and how the United States’ promotion of it will inevitably meet with resistance. In the medium to long term, this approach will not usher in a “new order” dominated by the United States. Rather, it will leave the United States with little support for its morally compromised cause.
The author is a research fellow at the Shanghai Association for Taiwan Studies.
Previous article![]( "From Noriega to Maduro: The Logic of Force in US Policy")
