Introduction

This paper presents an analytical reading of the aggressive policies pursued by the United States in Latin America, the very region from which U.S. colonial expansion began before extending across the world, encompassing nations of diverse ethnicities, cultures, and religions. Wherever wealth and strategic locations exist, such countries are incorporated into what Washington defines as “U.S. national security,” while their sovereignty is effectively nullified. Any free people who defend their national sovereignty are met with killing and starvation.

The paper sheds light on U.S. aggression in Latin America, from its historical roots in the Monroe Doctrine to the new U.S. strategy for 2025, which coincides with an ongoing aggressive U.S. campaign against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its resilient people.

Preface

This analytical paper addresses the problem concerning the nature of U.S. external behavior toward Latin American states, particularly its aggressive and interventionist conduct. This behavior takes multiple forms, ranging from political coups, economic sanctions, indirect militarization, intelligence intervention, and financial pressure to explicit or implicit military threats.

This issue is raised in light of current shifts in U.S. strategy, especially following the release of the 2025 National Security Strategy, which has reaffirmed the Western Hemisphere—Latin America, Central America, and the Caribbean—as a vital sphere of U.S. national security. In doing so, it has revived the logic of the Monroe Doctrine in a more explicit and severe form.

Accordingly, this paper seeks to deconstruct this aggressive behavior as a continuous approach, and to understand its economic and political determinants, its deep-rooted causes, and its effects on the sovereignty of Latin American states and their development trajectories.

Historically, the region has been among the most exposed arenas to direct and indirect U.S. interventions since the late nineteenth century to the present day, making it a revealing laboratory for understanding the nature of U.S. imperial behavior in both its classical and contemporary forms.

At the same time, Latin American states have, across different stages, attempted to build more independent development models or adopt socio-economic policies of a reformist, socially progressive, or revolutionary socialist nature. These efforts repeatedly brought them into confrontation with illegitimate U.S. interests, particularly when such policies were associated with curbing the influence of transnational corporations or redefining relations with the global capitalist system.

From this perspective, Latin America is not examined as an exceptional case, but rather as a revealing model for understanding how the United States deals with any geographical space in the world that seeks to expand its margin of national sovereignty.

Conceptual Framework

The Concept of Intervention

In this study, intervention refers to the totality of actions and policies exercised by the United States—historically and contemporarily—to exert direct or indirect influence over the political, economic, and security trajectories of Latin American states, in ways that exceed the limits of diplomatic relations recognized under international law.

Such intervention is not limited to the explicit use of military force, as in cases of occupation or supported coups, but encompasses a wide spectrum of indirect tools, including economic sanctions, financial pressure, intelligence support for internal forces, manipulation of governance processes, and the use of international and regional institutions to serve specific political and strategic objectives.

Within this framework, intervention is understood as a systematic and continuous practice associated with attempts by Latin American states to expand their political or economic independence or redefine their relationship with the United States. Accordingly, intervention is not measured solely by the degree of violence employed, but by the extent to which it effectively undermines the targeted state’s capacity to make independent sovereign decisions, even in the absence of occupation or direct military confrontation.

Imperialism

The study adopts a functional definition of imperialism, viewing it as a pattern of political and economic behavior exercised by the United States to preserve its dominant position within the international system through unequal control over resources, markets, and political decision-making processes in Latin American states. Imperialism is not employed here as an ideological label, but as an analytical tool to understand the structural relationship between U.S. power and external intervention.

Under this definition, imperialism does not require direct occupation or traditional colonial administration. Instead, it manifests through more complex mechanisms, such as imposing specific economic models, directing fiscal and monetary policies, reshaping ruling elites in alignment with the requirements of the global capitalist system, or obstructing independent development projects. U.S. interventions in Latin America are thus understood as long-term management of hegemony, rather than exceptional responses to temporary crises or isolated acts of aggression.

Sovereignty in the International System (as Reflected in the Latin American Case)

Sovereignty in this study is defined as the state’s capacity to make political, economic, and security decisions independently, without direct or indirect external coercion. This capacity is not exercised in an abstract legal vacuum, but within an international system governed by unequal power relations. Therefore, sovereignty is not reduced to legal recognition or international membership, but understood as a practical exercise shaped by the state’s position within the global economic system.

In this context, Latin American states illustrate clearly the gap between formal sovereignty and actual sovereignty, as well as persistent U.S. violations of their national sovereignty. Efforts by these states to expand their sovereign decision-making space—through nationalization of resources, redistribution of wealth, or diversification of international partnerships—have frequently been met with U.S. interventions aimed at forcing them back into dependency. Sovereignty is thus used in this study as an analytical concept to measure the impact of U.S. interventionist behavior on the structure of the Latin American state, its development choices, and its ability to redefine its relationship with both the United States and the broader international system.

The New U.S. Strategy (2025) and the Western Hemisphere

The Monroe Doctrine in Its Modern Form

The U.S. National Security Strategy for 2025, issued this month (December), reflects a clear return to the logic of the Monroe Doctrine, but in an updated form that transcends its traditional historical framework associated with rejecting European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. In its contemporary version, the doctrine no longer appears as a declaration of regional protection, but as a colonial framework granting the United States practical authority to prevent any competing international presence in Latin America, particularly Chinese and Russian influence.

The Western Hemisphere is redefined in the document as a direct security domain, rather than a political space of sovereign states. Accordingly, any attempt by Latin American countries to diversify their economic or security partnerships beyond the U.S. orbit is interpreted in Washington as a structural threat rather than a legitimate sovereign choice. This shift does not represent a literal revival of the Monroe Doctrine, but rather its retooling within the conditions of contemporary international competition, where rivalry is no longer classical colonialism but competition over influence, supply chains, energy, and geo-strategic positions.

National Security Over International Law

The new strategy explicitly prioritizes U.S. national security over principles of international law, particularly non-intervention and respect for sovereignty. Instead of treating the international system as a regulatory framework for relations between states, the document reorders reference points so that U.S. national security becomes a superior standard justifying unilateral actions, even when they contradict legal norms or Washington’s international commitments.

In this context, potential interventions in Latin America are framed not as violations of international law, but as “preventive” or “defensive” measures aimed at averting “future threats.” This logic reveals a transformation in U.S. discourse, whereby the concept of threat is politicized to include the economic and political choices of other states, not merely direct military actions. International law thus becomes a selective instrument, invoked when it serves U.S. interests and sidelined when it constrains them.

Militarization of the Neighborhood

One of the most prominent manifestations of this approach is the accelerating trend toward militarizing the immediate neighborhood, particularly in the Caribbean and Central America. The United States has strengthened its naval and aerial presence off the coast of Venezuela and expanded surveillance and intelligence operations under deceptive labels such as counter-narcotics, irregular migration control, and transnational crime. This security cover conceals a deeper function: reimposing strategic control over the near vital space.

This militarization represents a broader transition from economic and diplomatic pressure tools to indirect military deterrence, allowing Washington to keep intervention options open without engaging in large-scale confrontations. It also creates a permanent pressure environment that restricts the political maneuverability of targeted states and redraws the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable domestic and foreign policies.

Within this framework, militarization of the neighborhood is not a temporary security response, but a structural mechanism for managing hegemony in an era marked by declining effectiveness of economic control alone and the rise of competing international powers in a space long considered “exclusively American.”

Venezuela as a Contemporary Model of U.S. Aggression

Sanctions as a Political Tool

Venezuela represents one of the clearest cases of economic sanctions being used as a central political instrument within U.S. interventionist behavior. Since tensions escalated between Washington and successive Venezuelan governments—particularly during the revolutionary presidency of Hugo Chávez (1999–2013)—sanctions have evolved from limited diplomatic pressure into a mechanism of structural coercion targeting both the economy and the state.

This policy became more explicit with the first official U.S. sanctions imposed in 2015 under the Obama administration, which designated Venezuela as an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to U.S. national security. Sanctions then expanded unprecedentedly during the Trump administration (2017–2021), especially after the re-election of President Nicolás Maduro in 2018.

These measures targeted vital sectors, foremost among them the oil industry through sanctions on PDVSA in 2019, as well as restrictions on the financial system and international transfers, severely limiting the state’s access to global markets and its ability to manage sovereign resources.

In this context, sanctions are not understood as direct responses to specific political practices, but as tools for reshaping the internal environment of the targeted state by weakening its capacity to fund public services, narrowing decision-makers’ room for maneuver, and generating social and economic pressures that can be politicized.

This extended use of sanctions from Chávez to Maduro demonstrates their transformation from a temporary pressure tool into a functional substitute for direct military intervention, enabling the United States to pursue political and strategic objectives without bearing the costs of conventional war, while maintaining a high level of influence over Venezuela’s internal trajectory.

The Caribbean as a Strategic Space

Venezuela’s place in U.S. strategy cannot be understood without considering the geo-strategic importance of the Caribbean Sea, a central hub for trade and energy routes and a direct extension of “U.S. maritime security.” Venezuela’s location within this space, combined with its vast oil reserves, makes it a sensitive element in the equation of maritime and economic control in the Western Hemisphere.

This awareness has translated into intensified U.S. military presence in the Caribbean, expanded maritime surveillance, repeated threats of military action against Venezuela, and violations of its sovereignty aimed at plundering its oil wealth under the guise of combating smuggling and organized crime. These actions exceed their stated security rationale, serving instead a deterrent function designed to prevent Venezuela from becoming an anchor point for rival international powers within the U.S. vital sphere. Thus, the Caribbean emerges as a theater for managing power struggles, not a neutral geographic space.

Oil Rentier Economy and U.S. Policy

The Venezuelan model reveals a complex interaction between the rentier structure of the economy and external pressure. Heavy dependence on oil revenues made the economy more vulnerable to suffocation once those revenues were targeted by sanctions and blockade, intending to destabilize the internal situation, fracturing the state and society from within, and preparing conditions for invasion, regime change through coups, or pressure to remove the president and force new elections. In this sense, sanctions resemble mechanisms used against Iraq and Syria through the Caesar Act.

Venezuela attempted to counter this situation by seeking alternative trade and financing networks outside the Western system, including expanding relations with China, Russia, and Iran. While these options provided limited maneuvering space, they did not eliminate the structural fragility of the economy, leaving the state under dual pressure: internal pressure arising from structural imbalances and external pressure resulting from constraints on integration into the global economy.

This reality demonstrates that interventionist behavior does not operate in a vacuum, but exploits structural weaknesses within targeted economies, transforming them into amplified pressure tools and reproducing dependency in new forms, even amid rhetoric opposing it. Oil itself remains a Venezuelan national resource targeted by the United States, which seeks to dominate and exploit it and bind the Venezuelan economy to the U.S. economy, as it does in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen through mercenaries who control oil-rich regions.

Venezuela Resists

Ultimately, the Venezuelan case reveals that sanctions, militarization, and economic pressure are not isolated tools, but integrated elements of a strategy aimed at subjugating the state, plundering its oil wealth, and breaking its political will. Yet this approach has not produced the surrender Washington anticipated. Instead, it has contributed to the formation of a renewed sovereign consciousness within Venezuelan society, which views these policies as a direct assault on the homeland rather than a mere political dispute with a particular government.

Over years of blockade, threats, and intervention, the Venezuelan people have demonstrated a clear capacity for resilience and resistance, along with a growing awareness that the struggle transcends the political system to encompass sovereignty, resources, and independent decision-making. In this context, Venezuela today—state and people—stands in an advanced defensive position, openly prepared to bear the cost of confrontation should U.S. pressure escalate from sanctions to military adventurism and direct aggression. It thus represents a contemporary model not only of U.S. policy aggression, but also of the will of peoples to resist hegemony and defend their homelands.

Coming in the Next Installment

In the next installment, this series will trace the historical evolution of U.S. aggressive behavior in Latin America through key cases, including: Cuba from the Spanish–American War of 1898 and the post-1959 blockade and containment policy; Guatemala and the 1954 coup against Jacobo Árbenz; Chile from Salvador Allende’s election in 1970 to the Pinochet coup in 1973; Nicaragua and the Contra War of the 1980s; and Bolivia and the 2019 coup against Evo Morales—as revealing models of the evolution of U.S. intervention tools and the consistency of its objectives over time.