Dear all,

We welcome you to the Greater Caribbean Monitor (GCaM).

One of the most irritating habits in modern politics is the expectation that every decision must deliver immediate, spectacular results. If Donald Trump doesn’t overthrow an entire political system overnight, he has failed. If he negotiates with unsavory characters, he has betrayed his principles. Apparently, decades of authoritarian rule should be dismantled before the next news cycle.

Venezuela offers a useful lesson in political realism. Removing Maduro was one challenge. Preventing the collapse of a country whose institutions remain controlled by Chavismo is another. A reckless purge might satisfy those demanding instant justice, but satisfying public anger is hardly a substitute for governing.

The criticism of Trump’s cooperation with Delcy Rodríguez reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of international politics. Diplomacy frequently requires dealing with people one would rather see behind bars. That is the uncomfortable reality of exercising power responsibly.

Political leaders are entrusted with making difficult decisions precisely because public enthusiasm cannot determine the practical requirements of statecraft. Popular demands deserve consideration, but they are no substitute for strategic judgment. Venezuela’s transition remains uncertain. Yet its gradual progress illustrates why patience can be an instrument of power.

Foreign policy is not a popularity contest. The objective is to succeed, not to make everyone feel good along the way.

Geopolitics doesn't care about your feelings, nor should they.

For nearly ten months, Washington’s strategy in Venezuela has faced a persistent accusation: that Donald Trump had removed Nicolás Maduro only to preserve his dictatorship under new management. Delcy Rodríguez remained in power, the Chavista establishment retained control of the country’s institutions, and María Corina Machado, the opposition leader who had become the face of Venezuela’s democratic struggle, remained abroad.

To the usual suspects, the conclusion was that Washington had abandoned Venezuela’s democratic opposition in exchange for political stability and access to the country’s enormous oil reserves. But the developments of the past week prove otherwise. Machado has returned to Venezuela, the interim government has publicly committed to elections under a reformed electoral authority, and negotiations over the country’s political institutions are advancing. After months of uncertainty, the American strategy is beginning to produce visible results.

On October 25, María Corina Machado returned to Venezuela after nearly ten months abroad. Tens of thousands of supporters welcomed her as she traveled toward Caracas, showing that the opposition’s political strength survived Maduro’s removal and the uncertainty that followed.

Her return was especially significant given the widespread speculation that Washington had sidelined her in favor of Rodríguez. Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently confirmed that American officials had pressed the interim government weeks earlier to guarantee Machado’s safe return.

On October 29, Machado addressed supporters and journalists in Caracas, endorsing the prospect of elections in 2027 and declaring Venezuela’s democratic transition irreversible. The woman many feared would be excluded from Venezuela’s future is once again organizing her movement on Venezuelan soil, while the government that inherited Maduro’s institutions is now publicly discussing the conditions for competitive elections.

When American forces captured Maduro in January, the United States faced a problem considerably more complicated than removing an authoritarian president.