Elliott Abrams Critiques Trump's Venezuela Plans

President Donald Trump’s former special envoy to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, has expressed skepticism regarding Trump’s recent assertion that the United States could "run" Venezuela following the capture of Nicolás Maduro. In a discussion on CNN’s Inside Politics, Abrams highlighted that the term "run" was not commonly used in diplomatic discussions about Venezuela, suggesting that it originated solely from Trump. He emphasized the complexities involved in managing a country of approximately 25 million people, stating, “It would be extremely difficult.”

Daily Beast

Abrams advocated for a shift in U.S. strategy, arguing that rather than attempting to govern Venezuela directly, the focus should be on supporting the establishment of a democratically elected government. He stated, “What we should be looking for is a popular government, a democratic, elected government that can begin to rehabilitate the country with our support.” This perspective underscores a belief that internal leadership is crucial for Venezuela's recovery, rather than external control.

Daily Beast

During the discussion, Abrams addressed the potential need for significant resources and manpower during a transitional period in Venezuela. He firmly opposed the idea of deploying U.S. troops, asserting that their presence would be unnecessary if a legitimate government were in place. Instead, he suggested that the U.S. should assist in negotiating with the Venezuelan military and securing financial support from international institutions like the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank to ensure military loyalty during the transition.

Daily Beast

Abrams was clear in his condemnation of Maduro’s government, labeling it a "terrible regime." He reiterated that U.S. troops should not be sent to support Maduro or any elements of his administration. His remarks reflect a broader concern regarding the implications of U.S. military involvement in foreign governance, particularly in a complex political landscape like Venezuela.

Daily Beast

Abrams articulated a vision for U.S. involvement that prioritizes democratic processes over direct intervention. He stated, “I don’t think any American troops should go into Venezuela and certainly not to help this regime.” This sentiment aligns with a growing discourse on the importance of supporting local governance rather than imposing external control.

Daily Beast

While Abrams' views represent a critical perspective on U.S. foreign policy in Venezuela, there remains a lack of consensus on the best approach to support the country’s transition. Some may argue for a more interventionist stance, while others echo Abrams' call for non-military support. The debate continues regarding the appropriate level of U.S. involvement in Venezuela's political future.

Daily Beast

• “You know, nobody else used that word ‘run’ until he did,” — Elliott Abrams, Former Special Envoy to Venezuela

Daily Beast

• “And my thought is that that didn’t appear in some, you know, paper done through a long inter-agency process, that it just came out of the president, and that nobody else expected to run Venezuela. It would be extremely difficult.” — Elliott Abrams

Daily Beast

• “What we should be looking for is a popular government, a democratic, elected government that can begin to rehabilitate the country with our support and the support of the other democracies that surround Venezuela,” — Elliott Abrams

Daily Beast

• “Well, I don’t think any U.S. troops are needed if there is a popular government. That is what we should be doing, is helping the people who are elected take over, helping them negotiate with the army,” — Elliott Abrams

Daily Beast

• “But I don’t think any American troops should go into Venezuela and certainly not to help this regime, this terrible regime—the Maduro regime—stay in power through the other indicted criminals who are still there.” — Elliott Abrams

Daily Beast