On January 3, 2026, news outlets reported that the United States carried out a major military operation in Venezuela that struck key locations in Caracas and elsewhere and resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, according to statements from the U.S. administration. President Trump announced that they had been flown out of Venezuela and were en route to the United States to face prosecution.
This represents the most direct U.S. military action in a Latin American capital since the 1989 Panama intervention. Reuters+1
The U.S. government has characterized Maduro as responsible for narco-terrorism and narcotics trafficking, and the Justice Department has indicted him on related charges. Trump and his advisors indicated that this intervention was rooted in those allegations and framed as part of a broader campaign against drug networks. The administration also suggested future involvement in Venezuela’s oil sector. The Guardian+1
The Venezuelan government, international legal scholars, and several foreign governments have condemned the operation as a violation of international law and national sovereignty. Although some Republican lawmakers have praised the operation, others — including Democratic members of Congress — have raised serious questions about its legality, particularly regarding whether Congress had any formal role or authorization under the U.S. Constitution. Wikipedia
This dramatic escalation did not emerge overnight. In mid-2025, the Trump administration expanded military pressure on Venezuela, including airstrikes against vessels the U.S. alleged were linked to narco-trafficking via operations in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific, and deployed significant naval assets to the region. The administration designated groups tied to the Maduro government as foreign terrorist organizations and authorized the Pentagon to use military force against specified drug cartels — moves that were highly controversial and raised legal scrutiny at the time. Council on Foreign Relations+1
Why This Matters: The Promise and the Peril
1. Legality and Domestic Process
Under U.S. law and the Constitution, the power to authorize war or major military engagement rests with Congress. Historical debates over executive military actions without congressional authorization — such as in Iraq, Kosovo, or Libya — are long-standing precisely because they test the balance of powers. The legality of the Venezuela operation is already being questioned, and many foreign governments have condemned it as violating international norms that prohibit forceful regime change without Security Council approval. Wikipedia
Regardless of political perspective on Maduro’s governance, the precedent of unilateral military action without clear legal authorization sets a significant constitutional and diplomatic marker.
2. Likely Scenarios in Venezuela’s Future
Removing a long-standing authoritarian leader does not, in itself, create stability. Instead, it opens a series of plausible outcomes, many of which have historical analogues in other nations that experienced sudden leadership disruption:
Scenario A — Fragmentation and Internal Power Struggles
Political factions within Venezuela — including Maduro loyalists, opposition forces, and regional strongmen — could compete for control. When a ruler who controlled state mechanisms for more than a decade is suddenly removed, no clear successor or unified transition process may exist. This kind of power vacuum historically leads to:
-
competing militias or armed groups gaining influence,
-
breakdowns in security and governance at local levels, and
-
heightened risk of internal conflict.
Similar dynamics have occurred in Libya and Iraq after sudden regime change, where the absence of stable succession structures contributed to prolonged unrest.
**Scenario B — Foreign Influence Escalates
Venezuela’s strategic importance — especially its vast petroleum reserves — attracts interest from multiple global powers. Over the past decade, Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba maintained political or economic links with the Maduro government, while Latin American neighbors navigated competing pressures. With the central authority suddenly removed, outside states could intensify their influence, seeking to shape the next governing configuration. Congress.gov
In such cases, external actors with different geopolitical agendas can deepen divisions and fuel proxy rivalry inside the country.
**Scenario C — Economic Turmoil Deepens
Venezuela was already facing severe economic collapse, hyperinflation, and infrastructure deterioration long before any military action. Political disruption — especially involving military strikes in urban centers — risks exacerbating:
-
shortages of basic goods,
-
breakdowns in public services,
-
displacement of civilians,
-
refugee flows to neighboring states.
This creates a humanitarian crisis alongside political instability, with real consequences for ordinary people.
There's still people in Venezuela who support Maduro.
There's still people in America who support Trump.
That tells us what, exactly?
It tells us that even obvious failures can still keep loyal followers when identity, fear, propaganda, and grievance politics do their job.
3. The Geopolitical Ripple Effects
A U.S. military operation of this scale in Latin America — involving strikes on territory and the capture of a sitting head of state — invites diplomatic pushback from other nations and international bodies. Countries such as China and Russia have already criticized actions in Venezuela as violations of sovereignty. Such international responses carry consequences for global alliances and regional stability. Wikipedia
The reaction from regional organizations, neighbor states, and global powers will shape international norms about the use of force, diplomatic engagement, and conflict resolution.
4. A Moment of Decision for U.S. Policy
The Venezuela episode poses fundamental questions for U.S. foreign policy:
-
Should military action against another country’s government be used as a tool against criminal networks?
-
What are the long-term implications of replacing diplomacy and sanctions with direct military intervention?
-
How do constitutional processes factor into decisions of war and peace?
These are not partisan questions; they are structural ones about how a democratic republic conducts itself on the world stage.
Conclusion
The reported U.S. operation in Venezuela marks an escalation with far-reaching consequences — legally, regionally, and geopolitically. What happens next in Venezuela will depend on how local political factions respond, how neighboring states act, and whether international actors push for a negotiated, peaceful transition or a more fractious struggle for control.
The removal of a long-entrenched leader is a pivotal moment. Without stability mechanisms, inclusive governance structures, and multilateral support, the risk of prolonged turmoil — not the promise of peace — is high.
As the United States heads into a pivotal election year, we are doing so under a president who has repeatedly demonstrated an autocratic style of governance — one who concentrates power in the executive, marginalizes congressional authority, disregards international norms, and treats military force like a political instrument rather than a last resort.
The Venezuela operation is not just about one country; it is a reflection of how power is being wielded here at home. Voters are being asked a fundamental question this year: do we want a presidency defined by unilateral action, chaos governance, and erosion of democratic guardrails, or do we want a nation anchored in constitutional process, stable leadership, and respect for the rule of law?
The stakes are not abstract. They are immediate, they are global, and they are ours to decide.
Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!
No comments:
Post a Comment