Trump Considered Venezuela Invasion in 2017, Ex-Colombian President...

The conversation occurred during a diplomatic encounter in New York, a frequent venue for international summits and bilateral talks. At the time, Venezuela was experiencing severe political and economic turmoil under President Nicolás Maduro, with widespread protests and international condemnation. The United States had already begun imposing targeted sanctions, but the idea of direct military intervention remained a highly sensitive topic among regional allies.

Santos, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his role in ending Colombia's decades-long civil war, was positioned as a key regional partner for the Trump administration. His perspective carried significant weight in discussions about stability in South America. The former president's account suggests that Trump viewed the Venezuelan crisis with a degree of urgency that led him to consider unconventional, forceful options.

He brought up the idea of an invasion. I told him that was the worst possible solution.

The immediate and firm response from Santos underscores the diplomatic gravity of such a suggestion. For Colombia, which shares a long and porous border with Venezuela, the prospect of a military conflict next door would have been a nightmare scenario, potentially triggering a massive refugee crisis and regional instability.

Colombia's position during this period was one of cautious diplomacy, balancing its alliance with the United States against the need to manage a complex humanitarian and security situation on its border. Over 1.7 million Venezuelans had fled to Colombia by 2018, creating immense pressure on social services and infrastructure. A military invasion would have dramatically worsened this crisis, potentially displacing millions more and destabilizing the entire Andean region.

Santos's rejection of the invasion idea reflects a broader regional consensus among Latin American leaders at the time. Most governments, while critical of Maduro, favored diplomatic and economic pressure over military intervention. This approach aimed to avoid the chaos that had followed other foreign interventions in the region's history. The former Colombian president's account highlights the internal debates within the U.S. administration and the crucial role of regional allies in shaping policy.

• Colombia hosted the largest number of Venezuelan migrants
• Regional stability was a top priority for neighboring countries
• Diplomatic solutions were favored over military action
• Economic sanctions were the primary tool of pressure

The revelation also sheds light on the Trump administration's foreign policy decision-making process, where unconventional ideas were sometimes floated and then tempered by allies. It demonstrates how personal diplomacy between heads of state can influence the course of international relations, even on matters of war and peace.

The disclosure of this conversation adds a new layer to the historical record of U.S.-Venezuela relations during the Trump presidency. While the administration maintained a consistently hardline stance against the Maduro government, the specific consideration of a full-scale invasion had not been publicly confirmed by a former head of state. This account provides a direct, firsthand witness to the highest levels of discussion.

For the United States, such a proposal would have carried enormous strategic, legal, and humanitarian implications. Any military action would have required extensive planning, international legal justification, and likely congressional approval. The logistical challenges alone—given Venezuela's size, military capabilities, and the potential for a protracted conflict—were significant. Santos's swift rejection likely mirrored the concerns of other U.S. allies and advisors within the administration itself.

I told him that was the worst possible solution.

The statement from Santos is a direct quote from the 2017 meeting, offering a rare glimpse into the candid exchanges between world leaders. It underscores the former Colombian president's role as a voice of restraint and regional expertise, leveraging his experience in conflict resolution to steer the conversation toward less destructive alternatives.

As the world reflects on the events of 2017, this revelation serves as a reminder of the precarious moments that define international diplomacy. The decision to pursue or reject military action carries consequences that can last for generations. In this instance, the counsel of a neighboring leader helped steer the conversation away from a potentially catastrophic path.

The situation in Venezuela remains unresolved, with political divisions and economic hardship persisting. However, the region has largely avoided the large-scale conflict that an invasion might have ignited. The diplomatic channels, though strained, have remained open, and international efforts continue to seek a peaceful resolution.

This historical anecdote, shared by a former president who witnessed it firsthand, offers valuable insight into the complexities of global leadership. It highlights the importance of dialogue, the value of experienced counsel, and the critical role that regional partners play in shaping the course of events. The conversation in New York in 2017 was just one moment in a long and ongoing story, but it reveals the high stakes and difficult choices that leaders face.

The revelation by Juan Manuel Santos provides a significant piece of historical context regarding U.S. policy toward Venezuela. It confirms that at the highest level, the option of military force was actively discussed, even if it was ultimately rejected. This insight is crucial for understanding the full scope of the Trump administration's approach to the crisis.

Ultimately, the story underscores the power of diplomacy and the influence of regional allies. A single conversation between leaders can help avert a potential disaster, steering policy toward more measured and sustainable solutions. As the international community continues to monitor Venezuela, this episode serves as a testament to the importance of dialogue over conflict.