The recent military intervention in Venezuela by the United States under President Donald Trump has sparked fierce debate among Metro readers. Published on January 5, 2026, a series of letters in the MetroTalk section question the official justifications for the action, with many arguing the true motive is a grab for Venezuelan oil reserves.
Oil and Hypocrisy: The Core of Readers' Criticisms
Roger Backhouse from York dismisses the stated aims of restoring democracy or combating narco-terrorism. He points out that Trump has promised to sideline the probable winners of Venezuela's last election and says the US will 'run' the country. Backhouse asserts the real reason is controlling oil supplies, drawing a direct and cautionary parallel to the US-led invasion of Iraq.
This view is strongly echoed by Robert Boston from Kent. While conceding that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is "not a pleasant individual" and likely "fiddled" the last election, Boston warns of a dangerous precedent. He identifies Maduro's arrest as a clear resource grab, linked to Venezuela's oil supplies to Cuba. Boston fears any escalation beyond an embargo of Cuba could prove "catastrophic."
International Law and a 'Policeman' President
Other readers examine the broader implications for global order. Andrew McLuskey from Middlesex suggests Trump aspires to be an "international policeman" but with an eye on personal benefit. He laments the diminished role of the UN and warns Trump could learn from the perils faced by Tony Blair and George W. Bush when acting without clear legal backing.
David Frencel in London offers a more philosophical critique, challenging the notion of a neat "international order." He references a book by former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown about standing up to Hitler, arguing that an over-reliance on "legal formalism" can lead to paralysis. While stating Maduro is not Hitler, Frencel highlights the Venezuelan leader's alliance with Iran and the victims of the Venezuelan fentanyl trade to argue that context matters.
The Dangerous Precedent
The overarching concern for several correspondents is the precedent being set. Roger from Wolverhampton puts it bluntly: "Thanks to Trump, it’s now fair game to go into countries, steal their wealth and resources." This sentiment captures the fear that unilateral military action for economic gain is being normalised, with readers urging a return to more robust multilateral frameworks.
The debate continues, with Metro inviting readers to have their say on these topics and more in the comments section. The publication also prompts questions for its weekly politics newsletter, answered by Senior Politics Reporter Craig Munro, at alrightgov@metro.co.uk.
