Why the US action against Maduro recalls Panama — not Iraq

The U.S. operation targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has drawn comparisons to past American military interventions, but analysts note that it more closely resembles the approach used in Panama in 1989 than the large-scale conflict in Iraq in 2003. The distinction lies in scope, objectives, and legal framing. While Iraq involved a prolonged war aimed at regime change and occupation, the U.S. action in Venezuela appears designed as a limited, targeted operation focused on enforcing existing criminal indictments.

Observers point out that the Panama intervention, which removed military dictator Manuel Noriega, similarly combined law enforcement objectives with a calibrated military approach. Noriega had been indicted in U.S. courts for drug trafficking, and Washington emphasized the legal basis for his capture while deploying forces in a precise, rapid operation. Maduro’s reported apprehension reflects a comparable mix of criminal accountability and strategic military planning.

Unlike Iraq, there is no indication that the United States intends to occupy Venezuela or impose broad political restructuring. The operation reportedly relied on intelligence gathering, carefully timed strikes, and coordination with regional actors, aiming to minimize civilian harm while achieving a specific legal objective. U.S. officials have framed the effort as enforcing the rule of law rather than initiating a war to reshape governance.

The comparison with Panama also highlights the role of geography and domestic politics. Both operations occurred in countries geographically close to the United States, where regional stability and direct U.S. interests were central considerations. In contrast, Iraq involved a protracted conflict far from U.S. borders, with broader ambitions that included regime change, democratization, and strategic influence in the Middle East.

Legal and diplomatic dimensions further distinguish the Venezuela operation. By invoking preexisting criminal charges, U.S. authorities sought to justify action under law enforcement frameworks, whereas the Iraq invasion relied on contested interpretations of international law regarding weapons of mass destruction and the United Nations’ authority. Critics argue that even limited military action raises sovereignty concerns, but supporters note the narrower legal and operational focus compared with large-scale war.

The Panama analogy underscores the challenges of balancing law enforcement, military capability, and international perception. In both cases, the United States needed to act decisively to enforce legal charges while managing potential diplomatic backlash. Rapid execution and targeted objectives were central to reducing unintended consequences and maintaining international credibility.

Domestic political context is also relevant. In 1989, the Noriega operation occurred during a period of heightened concern over drug trafficking and regional security. The U.S. move against Maduro has similarly been framed as a response to alleged criminal networks and threats to hemispheric stability, rather than a comprehensive effort to restructure Venezuelan governance.

For global observers, the Panama comparison emphasizes that the U.S. is pursuing a focused, legally justified approach rather than a broad war. It highlights the continued reliance on precision operations, intelligence coordination, and selective engagement in situations where law enforcement and national security interests intersect.

Ultimately, the operation reflects an American approach that favors targeted intervention over protracted military occupation. While the international debate over legality and sovereignty continues, the strategy appears intended to enforce criminal accountability, minimize collateral disruption, and avoid the complications associated with large-scale conflict.