A hypothetical US military operation in Venezuela, as detailed by Jorge G. Castañeda for Project Syndicate on January 9, 2026, revives the specter of “Yankee Go Home, Again,” challenging established norms of non-intervention. This scenario, dubbed “Operation Absolute Resolve,” saw US forces reportedly capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas, bringing him to New York for trial.
The described events bear a striking resemblance to late 19th-century US interventions, particularly the Spanish-American War of 1898, when the US sought to “liberate” Spain’s former colonies. Such historical echoes raise critical questions about the evolution of US foreign policy in Latin America and the enduring legacy of the Monroe Doctrine, which for centuries asserted US dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
This hypothetical 21st-century intervention, if it were to occur, would signal a dramatic shift from recent decades of more diplomatic or economic pressure, potentially re-igniting anti-American sentiment across the region. Analysts suggest that while the ambitions to reshape regional dynamics might be high, the practical gains and long-term stability could prove elusive, much like some outcomes of past interventions.
The Monroe doctrine’s modern shadow
The concept of “Yankee Go Home, Again” is deeply rooted in Latin American history, often invoked in response to perceived or actual US interference. The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823, initially aimed to prevent European colonization but evolved into a justification for US hegemony. Its revival in a direct military action against a sovereign nation, as depicted in the hypothetical scenario, marks a significant and contentious escalation.
Modern international law and global opinion largely reject unilateral military interventions without UN Security Council approval. A 2023 report by the Council on Foreign Relations highlighted a prevailing sentiment in Latin America for increased self-determination and reduced external influence, underscoring the potential for widespread condemnation and regional destabilization should such an intervention occur.
Critics argue that such actions risk undermining democratic institutions and fostering resentment, rather than achieving long-term stability or promoting democratic values. The economic and social costs of military action, both for the intervening power and the target nation, are often immense and difficult to mitigate, prolonging instability rather than resolving it.
Geopolitical ramifications and economic fallout
A direct US military intervention in Venezuela, beyond its immediate political implications, would likely trigger significant geopolitical shifts, potentially drawing responses from other global powers with interests in Latin America. China and Russia, for instance, have expanded their economic and strategic ties in the region, and might view such an action as a direct challenge to their growing influence.
Economically, the impact could be severe. Venezuela, possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves, represents a critical asset in global energy markets. Any disruption to its oil production or export capabilities due to conflict could lead to increased global oil prices and significant market volatility, affecting consumers and industries worldwide. The International Energy Agency’s 2023 outlook consistently highlights the fragility of energy supply chains.
Furthermore, the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, marked by widespread displacement and economic hardship, would almost certainly worsen under military conflict. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) reports millions of Venezuelans have already sought refuge abroad, and a military confrontation would exacerbate this exodus, creating further regional instability and demanding massive international humanitarian efforts.
The hypothetical “Operation Absolute Resolve” and the broader discussion around “Yankee Go Home, Again” underscore a persistent tension between historical precedents and contemporary international relations. While the allure of decisive action might appeal to some, the complex web of global interests, international law, and regional sovereignty suggests that reviving 19th-century interventionist doctrines in the 21st century would likely yield profound and unpredictable consequences, far outweighing any perceived short-term gains.
