As tensions between the United States and Venezuela intensify, sociologist and historian Emmanuel Guerisoli has warned that a civil war is “very likely” if Washington tries to remove President Nicolás Maduro through unilateral action.
Writing in Spanish for Latinoamerica21, Guerisoli argued that the most stable path forward would be a negotiated transition—rather than a direct intervention. In a follow-up email to Newsweek, he cautioned that strikes without a major troop commitment, and without a political arrangement that preserves parts of the Bolivarian state, could plunge the country into violent conflict.
“If the U.S. just intervenes with strikes but does not commit enough forces and there’s no agreement in place that allows for the continuation of many elements of the Bolivarian regime, then there’s likely [to] be a civil war,” he wrote. He added that the U.S. would be better served pushing for an “orderly transition” supported by regional powers such as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico—and potentially Cuba.
Why It Matters
President Donald Trump confirmed last week that the U.S. seized a tanker off Venezuela’s coast, describing it as “the largest one ever seized.” The move signaled a sharp escalation in an already volatile dispute with Maduro’s government.
Caracas condemned the seizure as “international piracy,” framing it as part of a broader U.S. effort to control Venezuela’s natural resources. The government has filed a complaint with the United Nations Security Council and has reportedly faced growing pressure on its oil shipments.
What to Know
Trump has ordered a large-scale U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean and nearby waters, including an aircraft carrier, fighter jets, and tens of thousands of troops. His administration has described the deployments as tied to counter-narcotics operations and sanctions enforcement, but the scale of the mobilization has fueled speculation about broader objectives.
Maduro, for his part, has repeatedly accused Washington of pursuing regime change. The U.S. has a long history of intervention abroad, including efforts to topple governments and support leaders aligned with U.S. interests—an approach that critics argue often produces destabilizing outcomes.
In an article published in El Nacional and originally released by Latinoamerica21, Guerisoli—who holds a doctorate in sociology and history from The New School for Social Research—outlined what he believes Trump would prefer most: that the show of force alone could spark an internal coup.
“The most desirable outcome for Trump is that the mere show of force would trigger an internal coup, ousting Maduro,” Guerisoli wrote. But he said any lasting transition would require advance agreements with the opposition, protections for many Bolivarian officials inside the state apparatus, and a political amnesty.
He argued that unilateral military intervention would likely be expensive, politically unpopular at home, and prone to chaos in Venezuela. Such an approach, he wrote, would be “highly unstable, violent, and inconclusive,” warning that foreign-led regime collapse rarely results in democratization and often ignites civil conflict.
He also pointed to conditions inside Venezuela that could make any post-Maduro period especially volatile: internal fractures, collapsed infrastructure, a potential power vacuum, and a severe economic and humanitarian crisis.
“Unilateral U.S. military action, even with the support of a majority of the population, is unlikely to advance a peaceful political transition and could have catastrophic consequences,” Guerisoli wrote.
In his Wednesday email to Newsweek, he underscored a second risk: dismantling the existing state system too aggressively. If officials from the prior government—along with much of the judiciary, police, and military—are purged or dissolved in the way Iraq and Libya saw after regime collapse, he warned that the odds of civil war or a drawn-out insurgency rise sharply. He argued that avoiding that scenario would require a long-term foreign commitment—potentially five to 10 years—to maintain order, support a new government, and guide a credible transition.
He added that any negotiated settlement would need guarantees backed not only by Washington but also by regional governments prepared to sustain support during what could become a prolonged, low-intensity conflict with armed groups that reject the new order.
Otherwise, Guerisoli concluded, “a civil war is very likely” and could further endanger Venezuela’s future. He argued that a democratic and peaceful outcome—both for Venezuela and the wider region—depends on multilateral and institutional efforts, not coercive unilateral action.
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: “For the theft of our Assets, and many other reasons, including Terrorism, Drug Smuggling, and Human Trafficking, the Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. Therefore, today, I am ordering A TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF ALL SANCTIONED OIL TANKERS going into, and out of, Venezuela.”
Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry said in a letter to the U.N. Security Council: “This is an act of state piracy, carried out through the use of military force, constituting a blatant theft of assets…that are part of lawful international trade.”
What Happens Next
Trump appears set to keep tightening pressure on Maduro, with a particular focus on Venezuela’s oil sector—raising the stakes for both sides as diplomatic options narrow.
