The United States is currently facing multiple crises in the Middle East and Latin America, which some analysts attribute to its own policies. The capture of Nicolás Maduro in January 2026 and ongoing negotiations with Iran illustrate a pattern where tactical events receive media attention, while broader strategic questions remain unaddressed. Analysts argue that the U.S. lacks a clear definition of victory and often fails to dismantle the underlying institutions that support the regimes it targets.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb's concept of antifragility highlights a flaw in U.S. strategy: while military actions can destroy leaders and degrade military capabilities, the institutions that sustain these regimes often remain intact. This leads to tactical successes without achieving long-term political change. For instance, despite significant military actions against Iran, new leadership quickly emerged, and military operations resumed shortly after losses were incurred.
In Venezuela, the U.S. succeeded in removing Maduro, but Delcy Rodríguez took power almost immediately afterward, raising questions about the effectiveness of U.S. objectives in promoting democratic transition. The situation is similar in Cuba, where decades of sanctions have not dismantled the governing infrastructure.
Historical examples, such as the post-World War II reconstruction of Germany and Japan, show that successful regime change often requires comprehensive institutional rebuilding. In contrast, the U.S. has struggled to support domestic opposition movements in countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba effectively.
The analysis concludes that without a clearly defined political end state, U.S. foreign policy risks continuing to win battles while failing to achieve meaningful change in the political systems of the targeted regimes.