www.kcdme.com
Kurdistan Center
for Democracy in the Middle East
Khoyboun Flag
About us
Why did Trump ignore Venezuela’s opposition?
05.01.2026
Source:https://en.mehrnews.com/news/240477/Why-did-Trump-circumvent-Venezuela-s-opposition
TEHRAN, Jan. 05 (MNA) – As the Venezuelan opposition found itself on the verge of a power transition after the arrest of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Trump showed that opposition has no place in his calculations.
When the US special forces captured Nicolás Maduro in Caracas and transferred him to New York, the Venezuelan opposition thought their rosy future has arrived.
María Corina Machado, 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, immediately issued a statement calling it the “hour of freedom.”
Edmundo González Urrutia, the alleged winner of Venezuela’s 2024 elections, called for a transfer of power from his exile in Spain.
The opposition groups of Venezuela, who had been calling for US military intervention for years, were cheering that their dream finally came true. But in the White House, US President Donald Trump was performing a different scenario that there was no role for the Venezuelan opposition. At a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump announced that he has negotiated with Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, and that the US would run Venezuela itself.
“She doesn’t have the necessary respect to lead Venezuela,” Trump said of Machado, the woman to whom he had awarded the Nobel Peace Prize a few months ago.
This is not just a Venezuelan story. It is a recurring pattern of Trump’s foreign policy, one in which liberal oppositions loyal to the United States are sidelined at the critical moment, even after years of begging Washington for intervention.
From Nobel laureate to 'discredited': Machado's miscalculation about Trump
Machado's political trajectory is more than a narrative of "the fall of an individual"; it is a clear example of the miscalculation of oppositions that confuse symbolic legitimacy with real power. In a short period of time, Machado went from a figure whom Western institutions presented as a symbol of democracy to a politician who was not even worth a phone call in Trump's calculations; not because of personal weakness, but because his political capital was ineffective in the field of power.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2025, which Trump also claimed to receive it, significantly strengthened Machado's international prestige. The Nobel Committee presented her as a symbol of peaceful struggle for a democratic transfer of power, and the Western media spoke of her as the "face of the future of Venezuela." But this prestige remained more symbolic than linked to the ability to influence inside Venezuela. Machado ignored this gap and tried to turn the Nobel Peace Prize into a tool to consolidate her relationship with Trump, a relationship that she believed would end in a transition of power at the moment of military intervention.
In the later months, she tried to position herself as Washington’s natural choice by repeatedly praising Trump and publicly supporting the policy of maximum pressure. The announcement of the “hour of freedom” after Maduro’s arrest was a continuation of the idea that US military action would automatically lead to the strengthening of the opposition, but the Mar-a-Lago press conference showed how far this idea was from the real logic of US foreign policy. Trump’s statement about “lack of respect” was not simply a personal insult, but a clear assessment that Machado lacked the clout and the means to wield power.
Trump's disregard for Machado, while preferring to talk to a figure from within the ruling structure, showed that in his logic, the criterion for selection is not a democratic record, a Nobel Prize, or media support, but rather the ability to manage resources, institutions, and practical compliance.
From this perspective, Machado's removal was not an emotional decision but the result of cold calculation; an opposition that has democratic expectations but no control over the army, oil, or power structure is seen as an obstacle rather than a partner at the moment of intervention.
Here Machado's downfall takes on a meaning beyond the fate of a politician. Her experience is a reminder that in American foreign policy, symbolic legitimacy is no substitute for real power. Nobels, media acclaim, and even years of alignment with Washington are no guarantee of presence in the power equation. Oppositions that ignore this distinction are usually eliminated at the very moment they thought they were close to the ultimate goal.
Logic of removal and repetitive pattern: From Afghanistan and Syria to Venezuela
What happened in Venezuela is not an exception, but part of an established pattern in Donald Trump’s foreign policy, one in which pro-American oppositions are sidelined at critical moments, and Washington either engages directly with established powers or prefers to take the initiative itself. Afghanistan, Syria, and now Venezuela each reflect this logic in some way: distrust of political representation and a preference for direct management of interests.
Afghanistan: removing the like-minded government from decision-making equation
In February 2020, the Trump administration signed an agreement with the Taliban in Doha that outlined a path for the withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan. The defining feature of this process was not simply the agreement itself, but the way it was formed; the then Afghan government, which had operated with US political, financial, and security support for years, was effectively sidelined from the negotiations. The decision signaled a shift in Washington’s approach, where the US preferred to negotiate directly with an actor that had ground control and the capacity to exercise power inside Afghanistan, rather than relying on a pro-government.
Analysts later emphasized that the exclusion of the Kabul government from the negotiation process sent a clear message that Washington no longer considered itself committed to continuing the previous model. The result of this approach was to weaken the position of the then government and quickly transfer the initiative to the other side. Regardless of the judgment on the domestic actors in Afghanistan, this experience showed that in Trump’s calculations, “political alignment” without the backing of real power has no lasting place.
Syria: preferring withdrawal over commitment to field partners
The second prominent example of this pattern is seen in Syria, where the “Syrian Democratic Forces,” made up of Kurdish and Arab forces, were US field allies for years. The US armed and trained them and repeatedly emphasized its continued support, to the point where, in the minds of these forces, partnership with Washington was seen as a security guarantee.
However, in October 2019, Trump ordered the sudden withdrawal of US forces from northern Syria in a phone call with Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a decision made without effective coordination with the Pentagon and effectively paving the way for Turkey’s military operation against Kurdish-held areas. The launch of Operation Peace Spring has killed hundreds of people, displaced hundreds of thousands, and left forces that had been US partners until yesterday dependent on the Damascus government for survival. Defending the decision, Trump has explicitly stated that the US has no commitment to these forces.
This power shift shows that in Trump's foreign policy logic, neither ideological background nor previous ties, but simply "real control of power" and "effectiveness for American interests" are the criteria for choosing a partner, even if this choice means abandoning old allies.
Generally speaking, these examples ranging from Afghanistan and Syria to Venezuela, have a common message: in Trump’s foreign policy, US-affiliated oppositions play an instrumental and temporary role. They are considered as long as they help to advance pressure or legitimize; but at the moment of final decision-making, if they lack the ground power, control of resources, or capacity to impose order, they are easily discarded. Venezuela is merely the latest scene of this logic, where it has been shown once again that political proxy, without the backing of real power, does not survive in Washington’s calculations.
MNA
News ID 240477
05.01.2026
Source:https://en.mehrnews.com/news/240477/Why-
TEHRAN, Jan. 05 (MNA) – As the Venezuelan opposition found itself on the verge of a power transition after the arrest of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Trump showed that opposition has no place in his calculations.
When the US special forces captured Nicolás Maduro in Caracas and transferred him to New York, the Venezuelan opposition thought their rosy future has arrived.
María Corina Machado, 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, immediately issued a statement calling it the “hour of freedom.”
Edmundo González Urrutia, the alleged winner of Venezuela’s 2024 elections, called for a transfer of power from his exile in Spain.
The opposition groups of Venezuela, who had been calling for US military intervention for years, were cheering that their dream finally came true. But in the White House, US President Donald Trump was performing a different scenario that there was no role for the Venezuelan opposition. At a press conference at Mar-
“She doesn’t have the necessary respect to lead Venezuela,” Trump said of Machado, the woman to whom he had awarded the Nobel Peace Prize a few months ago.
This is not just a Venezuelan story. It is a recurring pattern of Trump’s foreign policy, one in which liberal oppositions loyal to the United States are sidelined at the critical moment, even after years of begging Washington for intervention.
From Nobel laureate to 'discredited': Machado's miscalculation about Trump
Machado's political trajectory is more than a narrative of "the fall of an individual"; it is a clear example of the miscalculation of oppositions that confuse symbolic legitimacy with real power. In a short period of time, Machado went from a figure whom Western institutions presented as a symbol of democracy to a politician who was not even worth a phone call in Trump's calculations; not because of personal weakness, but because his political capital was ineffective in the field of power.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2025, which Trump also claimed to receive it, significantly strengthened Machado's international prestige. The Nobel Committee presented her as a symbol of peaceful struggle for a democratic transfer of power, and the Western media spoke of her as the "face of the future of Venezuela." But this prestige remained more symbolic than linked to the ability to influence inside Venezuela. Machado ignored this gap and tried to turn the Nobel Peace Prize into a tool to consolidate her relationship with Trump, a relationship that she believed would end in a transition of power at the moment of military intervention.
In the later months, she tried to position herself as Washington’s natural choice by repeatedly praising Trump and publicly supporting the policy of maximum pressure. The announcement of the “hour of freedom” after Maduro’s arrest was a continuation of the idea that US military action would automatically lead to the strengthening of the opposition, but the Mar-
Trump's disregard for Machado, while preferring to talk to a figure from within the ruling structure, showed that in his logic, the criterion for selection is not a democratic record, a Nobel Prize, or media support, but rather the ability to manage resources, institutions, and practical compliance.
From this perspective, Machado's removal was not an emotional decision but the result of cold calculation; an opposition that has democratic expectations but no control over the army, oil, or power structure is seen as an obstacle rather than a partner at the moment of intervention.
Here Machado's downfall takes on a meaning beyond the fate of a politician. Her experience is a reminder that in American foreign policy, symbolic legitimacy is no substitute for real power. Nobels, media acclaim, and even years of alignment with Washington are no guarantee of presence in the power equation. Oppositions that ignore this distinction are usually eliminated at the very moment they thought they were close to the ultimate goal.
Logic of removal and repetitive pattern: From Afghanistan and Syria to Venezuela
What happened in Venezuela is not an exception, but part of an established pattern in Donald Trump’s foreign policy, one in which pro-
Afghanistan: removing the like-
In February 2020, the Trump administration signed an agreement with the Taliban in Doha that outlined a path for the withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan. The defining feature of this process was not simply the agreement itself, but the way it was formed; the then Afghan government, which had operated with US political, financial, and security support for years, was effectively sidelined from the negotiations. The decision signaled a shift in Washington’s approach, where the US preferred to negotiate directly with an actor that had ground control and the capacity to exercise power inside Afghanistan, rather than relying on a pro-
Analysts later emphasized that the exclusion of the Kabul government from the negotiation process sent a clear message that Washington no longer considered itself committed to continuing the previous model. The result of this approach was to weaken the position of the then government and quickly transfer the initiative to the other side. Regardless of the judgment on the domestic actors in Afghanistan, this experience showed that in Trump’s calculations, “political alignment” without the backing of real power has no lasting place.
Syria: preferring withdrawal over commitment to field partners
The second prominent example of this pattern is seen in Syria, where the “Syrian Democratic Forces,” made up of Kurdish and Arab forces, were US field allies for years. The US armed and trained them and repeatedly emphasized its continued support, to the point where, in the minds of these forces, partnership with Washington was seen as a security guarantee.
However, in October 2019, Trump ordered the sudden withdrawal of US forces from northern Syria in a phone call with Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a decision made without effective coordination with the Pentagon and effectively paving the way for Turkey’s military operation against Kurdish-
This power shift shows that in Trump's foreign policy logic, neither ideological background nor previous ties, but simply "real control of power" and "effectiveness for American interests" are the criteria for choosing a partner, even if this choice means abandoning old allies.
Generally speaking, these examples ranging from Afghanistan and Syria to Venezuela, have a common message: in Trump’s foreign policy, US-
MNA
News ID 240477