America’s recent intervention in Venezuela has raised significant questions. The removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their residence – accompanied by a military campaign – constitutes a notable departure from established norms in international relations.
How should this action be understood within the broader tradition of American foreign policy? And how can it be reconciled with President Trump’s self-presentation as a leader committed to peace and reconciliation? We begin with the Trump paradox and then turn to the broader American and global implications.
To understand this action, one must consider Trump’s complex but resolute personality – an individual who does not view conventional norms as binding. At the same time, as a second‑term president, he can be expected to seek a lasting historical legacy and to articulate a comprehensive global foreign policy.
Early in his second term, he advanced the concept of “peace through strength” as a guiding principle. In doing so, he positioned his national security approach as a corrective to what he viewed as the Biden administration’s failure to command international respect.
Historically, newly elected American presidents often frame their national security doctrines in contrast to those of their predecessors. Republican administrations have tended to emphasize strength. Without reaching back to Eisenhower’s “New Look” or Reagan’s “rollback” strategy toward Soviet expansion, similar patterns can be observed in recent decades.
George W. Bush emphasized the use of power, while Barack Obama emphasized diplomacy. By attributing the outbreak of the Russia‑Ukraine war and the October 7 massacre to what he perceives as Biden’s weak international image, Trump seeks to construct an inverse global posture.
Another historical lens is Theodore Roosevelt’s “big stick” foreign policy. Roosevelt’s maxim – “speak softly and carry a big stick” – aptly captures Trump’s foreign policy rationale. Like Roosevelt, Trump has revived the Monroe Doctrine, treating US intervention in South America as integral to American national security.
'Peace through strength'
The concept of “peace through strength” was most prominently articulated during the Reagan administration, but Democratic administrations have also incorporated elements of it. Joseph Nye, the architect of “soft power,” expanded his framework while serving as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Clinton by conceiving the idea of “smart power” – the strategic combination of hard and soft power depending on the situation.
Viewed through this lens, Trump’s use of hard (coercive) power in the Maduro operation does not necessarily contradict his rhetoric as a peacemaker. His willingness to use force against Iran, his strong stance against Hamas, and at the same time his issuance of 20 points outlining a vision for Middle East peace can all be interpreted as examples of smart power.
Trump’s legacy as a peacemaker who emphasizes “peace through strength” may ultimately be defined by his administration’s efforts to advance US objectives through a calibrated blend of military and diplomatic tools. The long‑term consequences of US action in Venezuela remain to be seen.
If the US succeeds in helping to establish or support a legitimate and stable leadership in Venezuela – one that cooperates with justified US interests – this would represent a clear application of smart power.
Having linked US military action in Venezuela to both personal (Trump) and state (American) level factors, it is important to consider the international system.
As the world’s most powerful actor, the US shapes global norms through its unilateral actions. A renewed Monroe Doctrine and a revival of American interventionism will send strong signals across the international arena.
As Trump seeks to restore US authority globally, his application of smart power in other critical arenas – such as China and Taiwan, and Russia and Ukraine – would be welcome.
If he succeeds in promoting peace through strength, American foreign policy may garner broader international support, potentially securing a lasting historical legacy for the US president.
Shmuel Sandler is President of Emunah‑Efrata College, Jerusalem, and Professor Emeritus of The Sara & Simha Lainer Chair in Democracy and Civility, Bar‑Ilan University.
Ben Mollov is on the faculty of the Graduate Program in Conflict Management and the School of Communication and teaches international relations and conflict resolution at Bar‑Ilan University.