Brett McGurk is a CNN global affairs analyst who served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
NOTE: A version of this column ran in November 2025.
Now that the United States has taken decisive action to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, the inevitable comparisons are already flying. Critics are invoking Iraq. Supporters are pointing to Panama.
Both analogies are tempting — though one is more apt than the other.
More than two decades ago, on January 24, 2004, I landed in Baghdad as a legal adviser, assigned an office in what was then known as the Green Zone. It was raining and cold, and my duffle bag was thrown into a puddle off the C-130 aircraft that had just done a corkscrew dive to reach the runway without risk of ground fire. Young American soldiers greeted me as we piled into a vehicle, sped out of the airport complex and then along a road called the “Highway of Death” due to car bombs and snipers.
What has our country gotten itself into?
That was my first thought on that harrowing ride, and over the course of a year in the country and then across subsequent presidential administrations, I often counseled prudence and caution when setting American foreign policy objectives. That is especially the case when it comes to the use of military power, the application of which must be tied to clear, articulated and achievable aims.
You might think the current situation in Venezuela triggers a cautionary tale to stop before our country once again finds itself in a situation that we do not fully understand with uncertain consequences.
Not so fast.
The situation in Venezuela today has little comparison to Iraq and far more resembles Panama 35 years ago, before the US military operation to remove a dictator and install an elected government that enjoyed vast support from the population there. That mission was a success, and Panama today is a functioning democracy, friendly to the US, albeit not without problems from crime to corruption.
Maduro is now facing trial in New York, just as Noriega did in Florida, where the former leader of Panama was convicted of crimes including drug trafficking and money laundering.
Is it possible that we are so paralyzed by the Iraq (and Afghanistan) experience, to miss an opportunity to improve the lives of Venezuelans and stability in our own hemisphere along the lines of Panama?
Venezuela and Panama: Similar Pretexts
On Dec. 20, 1989, President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation to define the rationale behind the mission he had just ordered into Panama. He explained that Panama was led by “an indicted drug trafficker,” Manuel Noriega, who would soon “be brought to justice” in the US. Bush added that Noriega annulled democratic elections, and that the winners of those elections would soon take power in Panama City likely with broad support. Noriega’s regime also threatened and harmed Americans, including the recent death of an American soldier, shot by Noriega’s security services.
Finally, Bush discussed the strategic importance of the Panama Canal, and Washington’s commitment to existing treaties that Noriega was unlikely to honor.
Against that backdrop, Bush explained the goals of the mission: “To safeguard the lives of Americans, to defend democracy in Panama, to combat drug trafficking, and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty.”
Two weeks later, Noriega was in US custody, the elected opposition government took power, and US forces began to leave the country.
I recently spoke with a former US military counterpart who took part in this operation, parachuting into Panama before Bush made that address. “Out of our many military ventures since Korea,” he told me, “Panama must be considered one of our most successful. To go there now is to see a very prosperous Democratic country.”
Now, let’s look at Venezuela –
Up until this weekend, the country was run by Nicolás Maduro, who like Noriega faces criminal indictments in US courts. The charges against Maduro are more extensive. His 2020 indictment in New York lists counts of narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and corruption. He is also accused of heading the trafficking organization “Cartel de los Soles,” which the State Department just branded a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Washington has offered a $50 million reward for anyone that can help bring Maduro into US custody.
Like Noriega, Maduro has also invalidated successive elections and violently suppressed democratic movements inside his country. The US and most of its Western allies recognize the opposition led by Maria Corina Machado as Venezuela’s legitimate government. Opposition parties, according to independent observers received 70% of the national vote in Venezuela’s presidential elections in 2024, which Maduro claims to have won.
Finally, Maduro, like Noriega, has threatened and harmed American citizens, as well as regional peace and security. In recent years, like his allies in Iran, Maduro has effectively held Americans as hostages for diplomatic maneuvering with the US. These hostages include an American sailor vacationing in Venezuela, longtime American residents of the country, and US-based executives of Citgo, the US subsidiary of Venezuela’s state oil company.
In 2023, Maduro threatened to invade neighboring Guyana, an American ally, and recently claimed sovereignty over two-thirds of Guyana, justifying the claim – much like Putin over eastern Ukraine – based on false history and a staged referendum.
Significant differences
With Maduro in US custody, there is no guarantee that local authorities throughout the country will work with a new government, opening the prospect for civil wars and a violent competition for power and resources. Maduro claimed to have recruited a militia in the millions to resist any US-backed operation, and while that claim may be exaggerated, we should presume that drug cartels may attempt to seize control in the countryside as opposed to the forces of democracy we might hope or wish to see prevail.
Venezuela is over 10 times larger than Panama.
The geostrategic context is also vastly different. In 1989, the Soviet Union had collapsed with the Berlin Wall coming down six weeks before the US invasion of Panama. America was the undisputed great power in the world, and there was no reason to expect or anticipate other superpowers resisting the military operation or making moves of their own in other hemispheres.
These days, Russia and China have been aligned with Maduro, and their leaders may cite the US operation in Venezuela as further justification to pursue their own hemispheric ambitions against Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively.
What are Trump’s options?
President Donald Trump in November said cryptically that he had “made up his mind” on a course of action in Venezuela. That followed CNN reporting on multiple high level White House meetings with military commanders on options following the naval buildup off the coast and exercises conducted by the US Marine Corps across rural and urban areas of Trinidad and Tobago.
Maduro seemed to be reading into these moves a possible American intervention, calling up his militias while also appealing for dialogue, even singing John Lennon’s peace anthem “Imagine” at a recent rally.
Adding to the confusion, the administration had not been clear on its aims. The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, described the mission as one to “defend our homeland, remove narcoterrorism from our hemisphere, and secure our homeland from the drugs that are killing our people.” While there had been no mention in official statements of restoring democracy in Venezuela, or an objective to seek the removal of Maduro as its leader, Trump had declared Maduro’s days “numbered,” and the military deployments, including the most advanced carrier strike group in the US arsenal, suggested aims beyond the publicly stated goals of Southern Spear.
To be sure, the removal of Maduro is in the interests of the US and the people of Venezuela. Before the rule of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, the country was among the most prosperous in South America, whereas today it’s a shambles with per capita income that has fallen by 72 percent, one of the sharpest economic collapses in history. More than three-quarters of the country by reputable polling opposes his rule, and there is an opposition government prepared to take power if given the chance to do so.
Until this weekend, the Trump administration despite its saber rattling seemed unlikely to pursue regime change militarily, a course of action that would cut against its stated aversion to prolonged military engagements. That prudence may have been warranted. The differences with Panama at this stage outweigh the similarities or hope that an operation against Maduro would go as well as Panama over three decades ago.
But the administration should not withdraw the leverage that it has now built up against Maduro and use it to good effect.
Short of a military operation to oust Maduro, the administration could have demanded that he give up key figures of the drug trafficking networks inside Venezuela, withdraw claims on Guyana, and pledge to hold new elections with international observers, which he would surely lose. To go a step further, the administration might have demanded his exile, perhaps to Russia, where he could have joined Bashar al-Assad, the former president of Syria, another dictator who destroyed his own country for the sake of personal power. For any of that to work, the administration would have needed to secure support from allies, including in South America, something that to date it has been unable or unwilling to do when it comes to its aims in Venezuela.
In any case, before the US embarked on a policy to replace Maduro, there should have been a congressional debate to weigh pros and cons.
Conclusion
The US after two decades of protracted military engagements overseas is rightly wary of any new endeavor that envisions regime change. That caution is warranted, but in Venezuela the case for Maduro’s removal from power has been both compelling and drawn more parallels to Panama than to Iraq. However, the coming political phase may prove far more vexing than this weekend’s military operation.
