Venezuela and Iran: Two Uses of American Power

In 2026 the United States used force in two very different places. In our own hemisphere, it brought down Nicolás Maduro. In the Middle East, it went to war with Iran. The Society supported the first and opposes the second. Some readers expected a nationalist organization to cheer both, and others expected a cautious one to oppose both. Here is why we did neither.

The answer is the test in our first Article. Does the action leave the American nation stronger, more prosperous and more secure? Venezuela passed. Iran has failed.

What we are not arguing

Many critics of the Iran war rest their case on process. The war was never declared, they say, and Congress was pushed aside. Those questions are real, and Congress should defend its powers. They are not the basis of our position. The Monroe Society is not a libertarian group. We have no quarrel with a strong executive or with American power used with force and speed.

Presidents have often acted first and sought approval afterward. Jefferson sent a naval squadron against the Barbary states in 1801 without a declaration of war. In the spring of 1861 Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of the Southern ports and enlarged the Army before Congress had met, then asked it to ratify what he had done when it convened that July. History judges those decisions by what they achieved for the country. We judge today's decisions the same way.

“Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government.”Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 70, 1788

Venezuela: power for American ends

Maduro's Venezuela sat inside our hemisphere and worked against us. It gave footholds to Russia, China, Iran and Cuba. It served as a corridor for drugs moving north. Its economic collapse drove millions of Venezuelans from their country, many of them toward our southern border. Americans paid those costs directly.

The operation that removed him was limited in scope and clear in purpose, and it took place where the Monroe Doctrine says American power matters most. Governments in Havana and Managua, and the outside powers that had invested in Caracas, drew their own conclusions. The hemisphere is safer for the United States because of it.

Iran: power for others' ends

The war with Iran has run the other way. It is being fought far from our hemisphere, in a regional contest whose main stakes belong to other countries. It has cost American lives and a great deal of American money. It has drawn down munitions and ships that deterrence in the Pacific and the Caribbean depends on. And it has weakened America's standing, with allies who question our judgment and with rivals who are glad to see us tied down.

A war can be costly and still be right, if what it secures for the country is worth the price. Supporters of this war have never made that case. They have offered reasons that matter a great deal to governments in the region. They have not shown what the United States gains.

One test, applied both ways

A policy built on American interest will sometimes call for force and sometimes for restraint, and the people who hold it should be able to say which and why. We backed action in Venezuela because it served the country. We oppose the Iran war because it does not. If the Iran war had been fought under a formal declaration, our judgment would be the same.

• Ask first what an action secures for Americans: their safety, their prosperity and their standing in the world.
• Favor action close to home, where our interests are greatest and our power goes furthest.
• Expect a clear objective and a defined end, and hold leaders to both.
• Judge by results. A mistake does not become wise because it was authorized, and a success does not become wrong because it was swift.