The Risks and Logic of Removing a Dictator: What Comes Next?

Duration: 41:47 | Recorded on January 4, 2026

S3E1 – U.S. intervention in Venezuela, the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, and the strategic, legal, and geopolitical implications of modern “surgical” foreign policy actions.

Featured Spirits
Rare Character Single Barrel American Light Whiskey
No rum, only lemonade

Show Notes

/ Invasion or Law Enforcement Action? Framing the Maduro Arrest:
Kent and Kyle debate how to properly characterize the U.S. operation that removed Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela—whether it constitutes an invasion of a sovereign nation or a targeted law enforcement action. Drawing on personal anecdotes about FBI overseas operations, they explore how modern raids blur traditional distinctions between military, intelligence, and policing roles. The framing question becomes central to understanding public and international reactions.

/ Historical Parallels: Panama, Noriega, and Unprecedented Precedent:
The hosts compare the Maduro operation to the 1989 U.S. intervention in Panama and the capture of Manuel Noriega, noting both similarities and key differences. They argue this action will likely be judged years from now as either a strategic masterstroke or a cautionary tale.

/ Motivations: Drugs, Oil, or Humanitarian Intervention?:
Kent expresses skepticism about drug enforcement as the primary justification, arguing that consumer demand—not transit countries—is the real driver of narcotics flows. Kyle counters with data suggesting Venezuela’s significant role as a global drug transit hub and Maduro’s alleged direct involvement.

/ What Comes Next: Power Vacuums and Governance Risks:
Both hosts voice concern that removing a dictator does not automatically dismantle the surrounding network of corrupt elites. They question whether Maduro’s successors could be worse and whether the U.S. is prepared to manage the aftermath. Trump’s statement that the U.S. would “run Venezuela” sparks debate over whether this was rhetorical bravado or a dangerous commitment.

/ Blockades, Boots, and the Lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan:
Referencing comments from Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, Kent and Kyle examine claims that the U.S. will avoid a long-term occupation. Can blockades and indirect pressure realistically produce democratic outcomes, or does history suggest deeper entanglement is inevitable? Iraq and Afghanistan loom large as cautionary examples.

/ Broader Implications: Iran, Dictators, and U.S. Power:
Zooming out, the hosts connect Venezuela to protests in Iran and the broader question of how the U.S. should respond to hostile regimes. They weigh bombing campaigns, targeted extractions, and isolationism, acknowledging that every option carries moral and strategic costs. A reference to The West Wing illustrates the enduring tension between restraint and decisive force.

/ War Powers, Congress, and Constitutional Gray Areas:
The episode closes with a discussion of the War Powers Act, undeclared wars, and whether the U.S. constitutional framework still fits modern conflict. Kent and Kyle question whether presidents now wield unchecked authority and whether reforms or amendments are needed. The conversation ends without easy answers, emphasizing uncertainty as the defining feature of contemporary foreign intervention.

Reference

Trump says U.S. will run Venezuela after U.S. captures Maduro (Reuters)

Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega surrenders to U.S. (history.com)

Rubio Lays Out Long-Term U.S. Involvement in Venezuela (New York Times)

50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 – WAR POWERS RESOLUTION (law.cornell.edu)

West Wing Clip #1: https://youtu.be/AXJRVVgz5aU?si=3zNGqAAaSbZFF4Sz (YouTube)