Open Letter to María Corina Machado

By: Ricardo Israel - 11/01/2026

For the first time, I'm writing an open letter in this column. I apologize, as my forte is analysis, but I'm doing so out of respect for you, María Corina (MCM), and because I believe that not only your leadership but also your place in history could be at stake. Furthermore, I believe the U.S. made a mistake, since there should be no doubt that, from day one, the final destination of this journey is democracy. Perhaps it wasn't appropriate that the government elected on July 28, 2024, be installed alongside Maduro's capture, but I never imagined they would be left out of everything. But as Rubén Blades said, "Life is full of surprises."

The important thing is that the transition has begun, and what comes next will determine its direction. If the destination is democracy, others have been lost along the way, so the vast majority trust you to help ensure that this doesn't happen this time, considering a history where so many external interventions, despite good intentions, have produced neither stability nor democracy in Latin America.

I have been officially informed that you will be meeting with President Trump, and I believe this is a good opportunity for you to frankly express your own opinion, not the position supported by the entire opposition, but your own thoughts. You can do this with a smile if necessary, and in English, as you speak it reasonably well. It is time to put the past behind you, with a man for whom personal interaction and eye contact are crucial in forming an opinion. This means you should give yourself a chance, since everything related to Trump is tainted, on the one hand, by those who find everything he does good, and on the other, by those who reject everything he says and does. This is the right opportunity for you to form your own opinion, to judge him more by his actions than by his words, since he often changes his mind within a single day.

Since there isn't a good biography or a book that attempts to objectively understand Trump, my recommendation would be to turn to what little is available. To understand how he negotiates and makes decisions, read the book he wrote with a journalist titled "The Art of the Deal," and to understand what he's doing from the government, read the 2025 National Security Strategy, which in 33 pages provides context for what he just did in Caracas. It also helps to understand why he has taken control of Venezuelan oil even though he has more than he needs in the United States.

Given how different this process is from what we're used to in Latin America, it would be wise to seek support from those who understand how decisions are made in the U.S., but who have no vested interests, whether they're American or Venezuelan. Also, steer clear of lobbying firms or those who claim to possess information that "only they have"—fertile ground for fake news and outlandish theories. Protect your mental health and be wary of those who present themselves as "experts," as there are many who think they "know" the U.S. simply because of their familiarity with its popular culture, movies, and TV shows. Trust yourself and your instincts.

I believe you should elegantly remind the White House that not only is the legality at stake, but above all the legitimacy of the process. Hence the importance of what is decided in Washington or Mar-a-Lago, as relevant as, or even more relevant than, what is happening today in Caracas, for example, regarding oil. Therefore, you can request two things: that the White House immediately hold the Chavista leadership responsible for any human rights violations, and that they also demand dialogue with the representatives of Edmundo González. It would be helpful to identify them as the legitimate government, so that Trump or Rubio are not perceived as fulfilling that role in Venezuela. It would be beneficial to see a renewal, not just the return of the old party system, whose leaders should, however, be able to return en masse to Venezuela, and therefore their safety must be guaranteed.

After all the years I've followed you and written about you for this column, I honestly don't know where that mistaken idea came from that you were just a "good person." If you established that special relationship with Venezuelans, almost unprecedented in the history of the region's transitions, it was for something more, much more. For me, what best defines you was that opportunity when you personally confronted Chávez years ago at his peak, when no one else was doing it, and you left speechless a person characterized by verbal incontinence.

The opportunity to prove them wrong has arrived, including the CIA, which leaked the idea that you wouldn't be able to control the military. During the Chilean transition, we had to coexist with General Pinochet, who remained commander-in-chief for another eight years, and everything turned out well. I don't know where the idea came from that you weren't the kind of leader the US expected, since I've always believed you wouldn't hesitate to make decisions in the style of Thatcher or Golda Meir, rather than Violeta Chamorro or Michelle Bachelet, who more than once shied away from difficult choices, whether in Chile or at the UN. I'm certain your leadership will never repeat the sad story of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (formerly Burma), who lost her prestige without achieving democracy by compromising with the generals of the Junta.

I don't attribute your closeness to the Venezuelan people to your ideology—in fact, I'm not sure where to find it—but rather I believe they see in you, above all, ethics, and not just any ethics, but an ethics of principles. Since Trump operates on the basis of personal contact, as has been demonstrated from Putin and Xi to Milei, do everything possible to cultivate that relationship on that level. Don't operate on assumptions or follow recommendations, but rather on what has earned you the trust of an entire nation, what has never failed you.

His strategy should operate on two levels, within the US and on the streets of Venezuela, which complement each other as they are not contradictory, since Washington's decisions are designed with their impact on the midterm election taking place this year, because, if he loses them, Trump becomes a lame duck, unable to be re-elected, an election that will not be won for Venezuela but for the voter's wallet.

Despite their numbers, Venezuelans in the USA still don't have a strong enough presence, so you can help change that impression, both in the media and among politicians. To make an impact, they should start now doing what has been successful: a march to Washington, ideally to the spot on the National Mall where Martin Luther King Jr. stood and where others followed, from women to Christians. I think it would help if other Latin Americans participated to demonstrate that they are now the largest minority group in the country, surpassing African Americans—a fact that is still not reflected in Hollywood or on TV, where widespread ignorance about Venezuela persists.

I believe it's necessary, both in Venezuela and the US, to demonstrate that they are the legitimate government, to present themselves as such to Moscow and Beijing, and also to speak in that capacity with military personnel and judges, all so that the support of their allies for the regime diminishes, and so that everyone realizes that they are on their way out and that you will win the future elections, probably next year, where Edmundo González may not be a candidate. Furthermore, the transition needs to be felt in the streets.

The strategy of moving past events is to look forward, not to be left out, but to be the third pillar of the transition alongside Chavismo and the US. Following the meeting with Trump, the focus should be on speaking for the voiceless, even in the way the Rodríguez brothers don't dare: disagreeing with Washington whenever necessary. Unlike them, you speak in the name of legitimacy and popular will, perhaps the way I expected you to act after July 28th, which didn't happen. In that sense, I believe you should take advantage of the White House visit to announce a meeting similar to Trump's with oil executives, this time not only with those from the US but from around the world, including those from China and Russia.

And to avoid repeating the reaction Zalensky had during his memorable visit, which was later corrected, he should say in the White House itself that he is helping with what is being done, since the reconstruction of the oil industry will not be quick, and just to return to the production that existed before Chavez will require several years and one hundred billion dollars of investment in a ruined infrastructure, in addition to the cost of debts and/or breach of contracts, which will be collected.

I believe that, as the legitimate government, they should send representatives to be received at an appropriate level in Moscow and Beijing, not only to earn the respect due to Chavismo or to diminish its power, but also because all debts must be paid sooner or later. Furthermore, if China lacks the oil it needs for export, I have no doubt it will resort to international courts if there is no payment schedule or promise, and it has a strong chance of winning. This could disrupt the White House's investment schedule by taking legal action against those American companies. Moreover, I am convinced that this issue will be present in the tariff negotiations with China, perhaps as an offer in exchange for the rare earth elements they lack and for which they have already been blackmailed.

I say the above because if there is a constant in US military interventions, it is that they have always failed in the "day after," a plan A, B, or C, which has often been conspicuous by its absence, and perhaps this also happened in this case, where it was announced that the military part would be limited to the capture of Maduro, which was accomplished, but not the subsequent part, where it was implied that it was an entry and exit operation, and that Washington would limit itself to swearing in González, given that there was a government whose election had been stolen, and also that there was a democratic tradition before Chávez, so Venezuela was not Iraq or Afghanistan, but part of the West.

Sometimes the decisions we face now are the consequence of bad experiences, as happened in places as diverse as the Middle East. Perhaps the negotiation with that faction of Chavismo represented by the Rodríguez brothers stemmed from the negative experience in Libya after promoting, alongside the French, the fall of Colonel Gaddafi, which was followed by a civil war. Perhaps Padrino López's armed forces were not destroyed because of what happened in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, where the dismantling of the army fueled the jihadist rebellion—a mistake also made with the Haitian army, a country where criminal groups have held extensive territorial control.

Can the word of the Chavistas still in power be trusted? The truth is, no, clearly not. With complete impunity, they lied to Biden to obtain a series of concessions, promising to accept free elections, which they failed to do, just as they repeatedly deceived Venezuelan democrats before. In this regard, I believe you can do much to explain to the U.S. that they do not represent a political alliance, that their codes are not even those of Machiavelli, but rather those of a mafia akin to the Godfather.

Furthermore, the international movement of automatic protest was immediately activated against the US military action. In this regard, you have denounced the colossal hypocrisy of those who use magic words like "intervention" or "sovereignty," demonstrating that everything changes depending on "who" intervenes. They probably never worried when Chavismo did so throughout the region, since there was no defense of sovereignty then, just as they weren't mobilized when all the rights of Venezuelans were violated consistently over time, nor was there any mention of the violation of sovereignty perpetrated by Cuba in your country. Everything indicates that these are the same people who never used the word "dictatorship" for Maduro, just as they still don't use it for Cuba after more than six decades. You were right to say that the Venezuelan crisis is not just about oil or drug trafficking, since with Chávez and Maduro there was a political project that aspired to control the entire region with the so-called Castro-Chavismo, aided by the Sao Paulo Forum, and the political backing of Lula, in addition to Iran and Hezbollah.

Today, we need to end the fear in Venezuela, and to do that, you can try to pressure President Trump to threaten the Chavista regime with the same words used to protect the Iranians.

The position taken by the White House also reveals another area where you can contribute, since what has come to light shows that the office you have in Washington hasn't functioned well. I understand that, rather than being your own idea, it was a concession made in the agreements reached after your primary victory to achieve that elusive unity. This situation warrants further review if what has appeared in the American press is true: that there was disillusionment because the responses to requests for a post-Maduro plan were perceived as evasive generalizations. Similarly, current advisors have apparently formed the idea that Kamala Harris was favored in the presidential race, which is worrying, if it isn't already true.

From another perspective, numerous transitions have presented experiences that, if not identical to what is happening today, are at least similar in those cases where it was necessary to coexist with legacies from the past. This is true not only in the case of General Pinochet in Chile, but also in Brazil, where, following the death of democratic leader Tancredo Neves during the transition, the presidency was assumed by Vice President José Sarney, who, despite doubts surrounding his character, guided the country toward democracy. Even more evident is the role played in Spain by Adolfo Suárez, one of the architects of the transition, who had a Francoist past. The case of Frederik de Klerk, transitioning from South African apartheid to Mandela, was particularly noteworthy.

However, in all these cases, there was something that made this success possible: the common factor was that the democratic opposition was always in the streets, pressuring and agitating, as well as establishing links with all the institutions that, until that transition, were close to and controlled by the regime. In addition to building a network of international support, this corresponds to a role where the democratic opposition and you as its leader are irreplaceable, and no one but you can make it possible.

One thing that must be avoided is what happened in the Dominican Republic, where, after the assassination of Rafael Leónidas Trujillo and the end of his brutal 31-year regime, power remained in the hands of someone close to him, Joaquín Balaguer, for years afterward. Hence the importance of studying these transitions to gain an understanding of different approaches, to have clarity on what needs to be done, and even more importantly, on the paths that should not be taken. Venezuela needs a democratic opposition that puts pressure on Delcy Rodríguez in the streets and also earns the respect of the United States, which must be made aware of its shortcomings in the transition process. This transition can only succeed if democracy is the top priority from day one.

In this regard, I believe you should encourage what I have been told you have pointed out privately, since, in relation to other transition processes, the lack of self-criticism about what has failed is striking (not only the experience of Juan Guaidó), but also other situations, which must include the fact that it failed to elect someone like Chávez, necessary also because now Chavismo has survived, so it will surely be present in the future of this suffering country.

I believe it was former Uruguayan President Julio María Sanguinetti (1985-90) who most accurately defined what a transition is, stating that it is the combination of the incoming administration's urgent needs with the outgoing administration's anxieties, and that the greatest clarity should be found in positions of power such as the military and the judiciary. If the success of a transition process is measured by lasting and stable democratization, the path taken today does not yet guarantee this, as there is both joy and uncertainty.

We must consider situations like that of Marco Rubio, who in Venezuela may be vying for either the presidency or the vice presidency, even though he still has to compete with Granell for the presidential nomination. Rubio has spoken of three stages, culminating in democracy. However, anything resembling "reconciliation" is unlikely without progress in democratization, which is precisely what has been present in each and every successful process. Something you can help them understand.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and what was orchestrated in Washington is a brilliant move to make the regime self-destruct, since the suspicions among the factions must be eating them up inside. But even so, you shouldn't have been sidelined. In any case, everything indicates that you will also have to work on another aspect: ensuring that Venezuela isn't forgotten as the November election approaches. Your success will depend on having direct access, for the simple reason that the worst thing would be for Trump and the US to lose interest, to the benefit of Chavismo and the detriment of democracy. When elections aren't going well, Washington is a fickle beast, as countries that were once important have discovered.

For this to happen, it is essential that the peaceful presence of their supporters be felt in the streets of Venezuela and in front of the White House, even if it is not massive at first. Their mere presence is enough, and they should trust in the multiplying effect of social media. Remember that their presence or absence will always be noticed, because if there is a void, the only certainty is that it will be filled by others.

You have earned a very special place, rare in the varied history of transitions, which should not be lost in the current whirlwind. Without singling you out, criticize the White House as often as necessary; that shouldn't harm you in a country like the U.S. Your focus should be on winning next year's presidential election. You win it today, but what about tomorrow?

Don't be afraid of the decisions that need to be made; you can always rely on the understanding of a people who have suffered greatly and, for that very reason, don't want to be lied to. Consider that some announcements are better made now than when you have to deliver them from Miraflores Palace.

Negotiate with Trump on behalf of Venezuela, as she is the undisputed leader, and show him that they were wrong about you, never forgetting that not being present is the same as being absent, since, in these transition processes, there is really nothing in between.

@israelzipper

-Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».