From Noriega to Maduro: How US punishes states defying its power

The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Saturday is the latest demonstration of a pattern that has defined American foreign policy for decades. It is not an isolated event.

It is part of a systematic approach in which the United States punishes smaller states that resist its influence while sending veiled messages of who is the big brother to the bigger states.

From Panama to Libya, Nicaragua to Chile, Washington has repeatedly shown that cooperation is tolerated while independence invites pressure, sanctions, or military intervention. 

The approach has spanned administrations and political parties and has been enforced through military power, economic coercion, legal manipulation and strategic control over resources; oil and financial instruments tied to petrodollars. In this agenda, small fish are fried openly while larger powers are warned indirectly.

The 1989 case of General Manuel Antonio Noriega of Panama provides a clear example. For decades, he operated as a CIA asset, providing intelligence on Cuba and Latin America and facilitating covert operations. He was never a president but was recognized as ruler of Panama from 1983-1989. His involvement in trafficking narcotics was tolerated as long as it served American interests. When he began asserting autonomy, particularly regarding control over the Panama Canal and related economic interests affecting regional petrodollars, Washington acted decisively. He was arrested and charged in Florida. “Noriega never regained his freedom and died in 2017 at 83, after serving prison sentences in the US, France and finally Panama.” 

The very activities that had been ignored for years were suddenly invoked as justification for his capture and imprisonment.  

This pattern extends across continents and decades as was seen towards the end of World War II. In 1945, President Harry S Truman authorized the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite its dwindling strength, Japan remained defiant even after the collapse of its Axis partner, Germany. Following Adolf Hitler’s suicide, Truman decided to act, sending a message to the emerging Soviet Union and asserting American dominance at the start of the Cold War.

Later, his successor President Dwight Eisenhower sanctioned the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo in 1961. Lumumba's insistence on controlling Congo's resources, including minerals that influenced global trade and energy markets, conflicted with US interests. His removal cleared the way for Mobutu Sese Seko, a pliant proxy, demonstrating that Washington could act outside international law and UN Security Council oversight when strategic goals demanded it. 

Historical patterns  

That same year, President John F. Kennedy launched the Bay of Pigs invasion to remove Fidel Castro from power in Cuba. The operation failed, yet it marked the start of sustained economic sanctions, assassination attempts and covert operations.

Castro understood that sovereignty outside American influence would always face contestation. 

Oil, energy and regional control

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan bombed Tripoli to punish Muammar Gaddafi and supported the Contras to destabilize Daniel Ortega's Sandinista government in Nicaragua. These actions sent a warning to governments pursuing socialist or independent policies, especially those seeking to control natural resources, including oil production or regional energy flows. 

In April 1980, President Jimmy Carter launched Operation Eagle Claw to rescue American hostages in Iran. The mission failed, eroding credibility abroad and weakening Carter domestically, contributing to his defeat in the presidential elections later that year. This demonstrates how foreign policy miscalculations carry immediate political consequences at home. 

Cuba also illustrates the use of legal and narrative tools as instruments of coercion. General Arnaldo Ochoa Sánchez, a decorated Cuban commander in Angola, became a target of CIA subterfuge. The agency attempted to frame him for cocaine trafficking to discredit the Cuban government internationally. Fidel Castro responded by executing Ochoa Sánchez in 1989 to protect sovereignty and prevent foreign manipulation. Resource sovereignty and control over oil trade networks were underlying considerations in such interventions. 

Saddam Hussein was removed from power in Iraq in 2003 under allegations of harboring weapons of mass destruction. Iraq became a demonstration ground for post-9/11 American military projection, signaling to regional powers that defiance would not be tolerated. Oil revenue and petrodollars were central to regional calculations and justified extended American presence. 

Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown during the Arab Spring in 2011 with NATO support. His pursuit of independent oil policies and African financial initiatives challenged American influence and threatened control over global energy flows. The collapse of Libya and ensuing chaos warned other states that independence carries risk. These cases show how Washington uses coalitions, military power and selective engagement with international institutions while circumventing veto powers at the UN Security Council when necessary to secure energy resources. 

President Donald Trump's indictment and capture of Maduro follows the same pattern. The United States labeled Maduro a criminal, delegitimized the Venezuelan state and justified sanctions and international pressure. The charges themselves are less significant than the effect. The operation isolates an independent government, constrains decision-making and signals to both allies and rivals that defiance carries consequences, including the risk of losing control over petroleum reserves and financial instruments linked to petrodollars.

 Cold War vacuum 

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 reshaped global dynamics and left left-leaning and non-aligned countries exposed. The fall of communism and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall under Mikhail Gorbachev removed a global counterweight to American dominance. Countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia that had relied on Soviet support were suddenly vulnerable to economic coercion, political interference and pressure over natural resources including oil exports. 

The end of the Cold War allowed the United States to test the limits of international law and global norms with minimal resistance. China under Xi Jinping and Russia under Vladimir Putin have since adapted strategies to counter American unilateralism, protect influence and secure access to energy and financial resources for strategic autonomy. Socialist policies, independent foreign alignment, or control over regional oil networks became markers of vulnerability rather than protection for many countries. 

From Noriega to Maduro, this approach has shaped how small and mid-sized states are treated. Compliance often shields governments from overt action while defiance exposes them to sanctions, delegitimization, and threats. Leaders who endure these pressures tend to be politically flexible, domestically secure, or situated within favorable global circumstances. Lumumba, Allende, Noriega and Ochoa Sánchez lacked such protection.

Continuity of unilateralism 

Fidel Castro survived by neutralizing threats, forming alliances and protecting key resources. China and Russia structured policies to resist unilateral US pressures. Maduro now faces a comparable world shaped by sanctions, oil pressures, and strategic calculations.

American geopolitical strategy carries risk. Jimmy Carter’s failed Iran hostage rescue shows how foreign policy miscalculations can have domestic consequences, weakening him politically. Small states with socialist or independent policies face ongoing pressure, and international law or UN oversight often offers limited protection when US interests, including oil and petrodollars, are at stake.

This pattern continues. Small states are punished, larger powers observed. Sovereignty without capacity invites intervention, while alignment with US objectives increases survival. Unilateralism uses military, economic, and legal channels, often bypassing oversight when resource control is at stake. Examples from Panama, Cuba, Chile, Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela show the strategy’s consistency.

The capture of Maduro in Caracas confirms American power remains decisive. Independent governments face sanctions, delegitimization, and targeted action. Major powers observe while smaller states adjust policies. Ideology, international law, and moral concerns are often secondary to strategic influence and control of oil reserves and financial flows.