January 8, 2026
Hans J. Morgenthau, a founder of the Realist theory in international relations, outlined six principles of the theory in his book, ‘Politics Among Nations,’ written about seven decades ago. The fourth principle states, “…universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of the states…the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival.”
To put simply, there is no equivalence when one talks about morality in the context of domestic politics and in the context of international politics. For the realists, prudence is the supreme virtue in international politics. Further, when combined with Morgenthau’s second principle, which defines national interest in terms of power, in an anarchical world a nation’s goal is to pursue power and security. The recent US operation in Venezuela can be viewed through such a realist lens.
Realism is the oldest school in international relations – drawing its philosophical basis from thinkers like Machiavelli and Hobbes. It adopts a pessimistic view of human nature, which is, to use Hobbes’s words, ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’. When applied to the nature of states, it implies a world where ‘might is right’. In a realist world, goals are more important than the means employed to achieve them. Morgenthau quoted Abraham Lincoln to support this argument, “I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
In a realist world, nations suffer from a security dilemma as they are not sure what the rivals are preparing for and, hence, they must always be on the edge to protect their interests.
It is not that the realists are averse to international mechanisms such as the United Nations. But so far these mechanisms are directly or indirectly serving national interests, the realists would support them. But whenever they act as detriments to national interest, realists would not mind bypassing them. One can view the US attack on Iraq in 2003 from such a realist lens. The Bush administration went to the United Nations for approval for its military operation in Iraq but went ahead with its plan without the approval. The argument that Iraq’s accumulation of weapons of mass destruction was against the US national interest was a realist ground for the operation.
One could also view the Monroe Doctrine, which the Trump administration invoked while intervening in Venezuela, from a realist standpoint. President James Monroe announced that there would be no intervention of major powers, particularly a reference to the European powers, in the American continents. In his annual message to the Congress in 1823, he outlined the principle “in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”
In the post-cold war world, it could be interpreted in a realist way that, as the US is the major power in the American continents, its national interest must be factored by the countries in the region. Venezuela, particularly after Hugo Chavez came to power in the late 1990s, worked against the US interests by cultivating relations with adversaries like Russia, China, Cuba and Iran, supporting anti-US non-state groups, and undermining US economic interests in the region.
Following the realist principles, the US intervention in Venezuela can be called a case of moral relativism. Even though the US was founded on a vision of democracy and rule of law, the realist principles dictate that it might or might not factor those same values in its foreign policy if national interest demands such a course. In the case of Venezuela one of long-term US goals was to promote democracy and human rights, but the immediate goal was to oust undemocratic and unfriendly Maduro. The recent operation further enhances the luster of realism in international relations and undermines once appealing theories that emphasize international institutions and norms, and universal moral principles.
