By Sajid Khan

The United States’ repeated use of military force against states that defy its demands has once again come under scrutiny, following President Donald Trump’s latest social media post claiming a US strike in Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

Critics say the episode reflects a long-standing pattern in which Washington acts unilaterally, often without clear international authorization, raising serious concerns about respect for state sovereignty and international law.

Over the past two decades, the United States has launched or led military interventions in Iraq (2003), Afghanistan (2001) and Libya (2011), each justified at the time on grounds of security, counterterrorism, or humanitarian necessity. While some actions were backed by allies, many were widely criticized for bypassing the United Nations or stretching international legal frameworks, leaving lasting instability in their wake. Other operations — including strikes in Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan — have similarly fueled debate over the limits of self-defence and the use of force beyond national borders.

The latest claims regarding Venezuela, if confirmed, would mark another escalation. Trump’s statement suggested direct US action against the Venezuelan state and its leadership, a move that would sharply challenge established norms of non-interference.

Rhetoric surrounding the claim further heightened concerns. Less than an hour after Trump’s post, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau wrote on X, “A new dawn for Venezuela! The tyrant is gone. He will now—finally—face justice for his crimes.” Critics argue such language reinforces perceptions of Washington positioning itself as an arbiter over the internal affairs of other states.

Caracas has long accused Washington of pursuing regime change, allegations the US denies, saying its actions target crime, corruption, or threats to regional security.

Tensions have also sharpened with Iran, after Trump on Friday openly threatened intervention and declared US support for protesters — remarks Tehran condemned as blatant interference in its internal affairs. Iranian officials warned that such rhetoric violates international law and risks wider regional destabilization.

Taken together, these episodes have revived a broader question: how long will the United States continue to act as an enforcer beyond its borders, often outside multilateral consensus? Critics argue that selective application of international law undermines the global rules-based order Washington claims to defend, while supporters insist US power is necessary to counter threats others cannot or will not address.

As global power balances shift and resistance to unilateral action grows, analysts say the diplomatic, legal, and human costs of such interventions are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Whether the United States recalibrates its approach or continues on its current path remains a defining question of contemporary international politics.