As the Trump administration’s sights turn towards Venezuela, the need for a robust antiwar movement has never been more pressing. Drawing lessons from the Iraq War, this new resistance must appeal to the hearts and minds of the American public to halt the cycle of disastrous foreign interventions.
The parallels between the current situation and the lead-up to the Iraq invasion are striking. Just as the Bush administration dismissed dissent and international consensus in its rush to war, Trump now flouts traditional constraints on his war-making powers. His gleeful defiance of congressional consent, global norms, and the opinions of historic allies mirrors the unilateralism that defined the earlier conflict.
Yet the “Iraq syndrome” offers some hope. The public’s deep skepticism towards “stupid wars” that fail to serve American interests may limit Trump’s ambitions, at least in the near term. The President appears reluctant to commit “boots on the ground”, instead favouring a more limited approach of remote strikes, blockades, and covert operations.
However, this “imperialism lite” is no less dangerous. As the anti-Iraq War movement demonstrated, steadfast protest can erode the perceived legitimacy of military action and hasten its end. Activists must make the case against war before the destruction is unleashed, for once the first shots are fired, the chaos becomes increasingly difficult to contain.
Building an effective coalition to constrain Trump will be a formidable challenge. The left cannot succeed alone – a broad, bipartisan groundswell is needed. Progressives must overcome their reservations about aligning with Trump’s “America First” loyalists, recognising that on the issue of war, common ground can be found. Just as in the 2000s, a sliver of Republican defectors could prove crucial.
The stakes are high. Whether Trump pursues a maximalist course of “regime change” in Venezuela, or opts for a more restrained “imperialism lite”, the potential for disaster looms large. The lessons of Iraq – of deceitful pretexts, disastrous consequences, and the urgent need to act before the first bombs fall – must guide the new antiwar movement. Only then can we hope to avert the opening scenes of a dismal sequel to that tragic saga.
