As tensions rise in Venezuela, experts caution that the potential ousting of President Nicolás Maduro could create a power vacuum filled by criminal organizations and armed groups. This shift could lead to a situation even more dangerous than the current regime, according to analysts. The escalating pressure from the United States, particularly under the Trump administration, has intensified discussions about the ramifications of a post-Maduro Venezuela.
In recent statements, experts highlighted that a transition away from Maduro might not necessarily result in a more democratic or stable environment. Instead, it could pave the way for successors who are equally or more authoritarian. Roxanna Vigil, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted, “What comes next will largely depend on what direction this U.S. pressure campaign goes in.” She emphasized that an escalation could lead to a scenario with little control over the ensuing chaos.
The current political landscape in Venezuela is fragmented, resembling a patchwork of territories controlled by various factions, including drug cartels and guerrilla groups. Vigil warned that an uncontrolled collapse of the regime could unleash powerful armed actors who have long established themselves throughout the country.
Jason Marczak, vice president and senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, echoed these concerns. He pointed out that the potential rise of violent criminal syndicates poses a significant risk. “It’s hard to imagine things getting any worse than they are under Nicolás Maduro,” he stated. “But it’s critical not just that Maduro leaves, but that those around him are not allowed to come to power.”
Analysts have identified several prominent figures who could potentially fill a power vacuum should Maduro be ousted. Among them is Diosdado Cabello, a key player in the Chavista movement, who has been described as the most influential figure within the current regime. Sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury in 2018 for corruption and links to drug trafficking, Cabello’s ascension could solidify an even more repressive regime.
Another significant figure is Jorge Rodríguez, the president of the National Assembly and a close ally of Maduro. Rodríguez has been sanctioned for undermining democratic institutions, and experts warn that his leadership could result in a more technocratic but equally authoritarian governance, controlling electoral processes and state information systems.
Vladimir Padrino López, Venezuela’s long-serving defense minister, is also considered a pivotal player. He has been instrumental in maintaining military loyalty to Maduro. Analysts caution that if Padrino were to assume leadership, Venezuela could see a shift toward a more militarized political structure, further intertwining military command with political authority.
The influence of Delcy Rodríguez, the vice president, cannot be overlooked. She has played a crucial role in the regime’s economic and diplomatic strategies, and her leadership could tighten state control over the economy and political apparatus. Similarly, Cilia Flores, the first lady and a longtime Chavista figure, has significant political influence, making her a key player in any succession scenario.
Finally, Iván Hernández Dala, head of Venezuela’s military counterintelligence service, commands a powerful segment of the security apparatus. His history of human rights abuses has drawn international condemnation, and his control over internal repression positions him as a formidable actor in any potential power struggle.
As these dynamics unfold, experts stress that the United States’ approach will be crucial in determining Venezuela’s future. Both Marczak and Vigil believe that whether Washington chooses to negotiate or escalate its actions will influence whether the country moves toward democracy or an even more perilous situation. Marczak succinctly stated, “A win isn’t just Nicolás Maduro leaving… A win is actually a transition to democratic forces.”
The intricate web of power dynamics in Venezuela paints a complex picture of potential outcomes. The urgency and gravity of the situation emphasize the need for careful consideration of the next steps in U.S. foreign policy.
