Trump's Venezuela intervention represents continuity, not departure, from US imperial tradition

Source: Gilbert Achcar. "Donald Trump’s Imperialism Follows a Grim American Tradition." February 16, 2026. jacobin.com

The Gist

The author argues that Trump's actions in Venezuela aren't new or shocking - they're just the latest example of America's long history of military interventions abroad. The main difference is that Trump doesn't bother pretending he's spreading democracy; he's openly focused on getting what America wants through force.

Conclusion

Donald Trump's recent intervention in Venezuela is not a radical departure from American foreign policy but rather a continuation of longstanding US imperialism, differing only in that it abandons the pretense of promoting democracy

Premises

  1. US military interventions have been consistent since 1989, including Panama (1989), Iraq (2003), and Afghanistan, all violating international law
  2. The Iraq War's failure taught US leaders to avoid regime change through occupation and instead force existing regimes to comply with American demands
  3. Obama's attempt at 'democratization from below' through supporting Arab Spring movements also failed
  4. Trump's Venezuela policy follows the post-Iraq lesson: use force to compel regime compliance rather than overthrow governments
  5. Trump explicitly prioritizes seizing resources (oil) over promoting democratic change, as evidenced by his 'Take the Oil' approach
  6. Trump has maintained contacts within Maduro's regime and seeks behavioral change rather than regime change
  7. Western media's sudden use of 'imperialist' terminology for US actions is disingenuous, as they previously reserved this term only for Russia

Assumptions

View this argument on LogicFirst.ai