Why the US‑backed Venezuelan opposition leader was sidelined after Maduro’s capture
The rapidly unfolding political crisis in Venezuela has entered a striking new phase following the dramatic capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife by U.S. forces. Rather than elevating leading opposition figure María Corina Machado, as some expected, former U.S. President Donald Trump openly questioned her role in the country’s future — underscoring that reliance on foreign power does not always translate into domestic political authority.
The stunning turn of events began when U.S. forces conducted overnight strikes in Caracas, eventually capturing Maduro and announcing his removal from power. Trump declared that the United States would oversee Venezuela during a transitional period — but notably did not appoint Machado to lead that transition, saying she lacked the necessary respect and support among Venezuelans to govern.
Machado’s Rise and International Profile
Maria Corina Machado, 58, has been a central figure in the Venezuelan opposition for years. In recent years, she became closely aligned with U.S. policies toward Venezuela, advocating forceful measures and military intervention. After receiving the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, she controversially suggested that Trump was more deserving of the award than herself. She repeatedly called on the United States to take military action in Venezuela and played a visible role in promoting psychological support for attacks and blockades against the country. Yet now, more than ever, her hands appear empty.
Trump’s Rejection and the Leadership Vacuum
In a January press conference following Maduro’s capture, Trump was asked whether he planned to work with Machado. His response was clear: “No.” He described her as a “very good woman” but suggested she did not have adequate domestic support or respect to lead her own country.
Instead, Trump said his administration would manage Venezuela “until … a safe, proper and judicious transition” could occur, although details on how that would work were vague. Venezuelans were left uncertain about who truly holds power: the U.S. effort to oversee the transition, the continuing Maduro loyalists within the government, or other opposition figures with constitutional claims.
What This Means for Venezuela’s Future
While some analysts initially speculated that Machado could emerge as the successor after Maduro’s fall, concrete U.S. support for her leadership has not materialized. Other opposition figures, including Edmundo González — recognized by some as the constitutional winner of Venezuela’s disputed 2024 elections — are also mentioned as potential leaders, but the situation remains fluid.
The sidelining of Machado highlights a key lesson of geopolitics: external backing does not guarantee internal legitimacy. Even with international recognition, winning domestic support is crucial for leadership in a deeply divided nation.
The Stark Reality Behind Foreign Support
Ultimately, Machado’s story exposes an old truth in politics: foreign powers are not saviors of nations. They will only support local actors as long as it serves their own interests. An opposition that sacrifices itself to gain Washington’s favor can easily be sidelined, even within the very think tanks that strategize its rise.
Maria Machado’s “losing her crown” is not a coincidence—it is the natural consequence of betting on outsiders while turning away from one’s own people. It is a predictable end for a project that traded domestic legitimacy for promises from abroad, only to find silence and denial at the moment of reckoning.
Once again, the United States has shown that its aim is modern-day colonization, targeting Venezuela’s resources and oil. Along the way, deceptive slogans have been part of the strategy, but the country has never offered any real gift to the Venezuelan people.
The U.S. has once more confirmed that “saving nations” is merely a rhetorical claim. In practice, the goal is political control, resource plunder, and the consolidation of new forms of dominance. Machado’s fate serves as a stark warning to all movements that turn their backs on their own people and place their trust in foreign powers: in this game, there is neither crown nor reward, and the only outcome for the dependent is oblivion and humiliation.
From: Fars