On January 3, 2026, the U.S. military attacked Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, in an operation code-named “Operation Absolute Resolve” and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro, from his residence. In a press briefing later, President Trump said that the US will manage affairs in Venezuela and that it will implement the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere.
To better understand why the U.S. military ended up capturing Nicolás Maduro from his residence and took him to the US to be tried under American domestic law, we must look beyond the headlines of the narco-terrorism indictment and understand the deep-seated friction between these two nations that has gone on for some time.
From Partners to Rivals
The relationship between Washington and Caracas hasn’t always been testy and hostile. Indeed, for most of the 20th century, Venezuela was the United States’ reliable partner in the Western Hemisphere. The golden era started in the 1920s, when the U.S. became the primary market for Venezuelan oil. The deal suited both sides: American capital built the infrastructure for oil extraction, and Venezuelan crude went to America.
The arrival of Hugo Chávez in 1999 changed everything. He unleashed the Bolivarian Revolution, a socialist, anti-imperialist political project, after his 1999 election, and shifted the US-Venezuela relationship from cooperation to one of anti-Imperialist struggle. In 2012, nearing the end of his life, Chávez appointed his foreign minister, Nicolas Maduro, as vice president, who assumed the office of the president after Chávez’s death.
The relationship worsened with the short-lived coup against Chávez in 2002. While the U.S. denied any involvement, Chávez viewed Washington’s immediate recognition of the interim government as a declaration of war by other means. The relationship was characterised by this narrative thereafter: Venezuela was the “David” fighting the “Gringo Goliath.”
Failed Sanctions and the Case for Intervention
Fast forward to the recent past. Why did the U.S. finally move from mere sanctions on its Southern neighbour to carrying out military strikes against it? The American justification for doing so rests on a three-pronged legal and security argument.
The U.S. Department of Justice accuses the Maduro regime of narco terrorism and alleges that the “Cartel of the Suns” (a drug trafficking organisation allegedly run by Venezuelan military officials and overseen by the president himself) turned the state into a transit point for cocaine to the United States.
The second argument made by the US is that there has been a dramatic democratic decline in Venezuela, with the 2024 elections becoming the final straw. Despite promising free elections in exchange for sanctions relief, Maduro blocked opposition candidate Maria Corina Machado and claimed a victory that much of the world viewed as a sham election. There is also enough objective evidence to show that the election was far from free and fair.
Then comes the terror designation. Earlier last year, Washington designated Venezuelan gangs like Tren de Aragua as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), effectively treating the migration crisis as a national security threat rather than a humanitarian one.
Operation Absolute Resolve
Let’s now come to what happened late last week. The 2026 strike was building up for some time. Towards the end of 2025, the American military began sinking boats in the Caribbean, allegedly carrying drugs. Then came the big bang on January 3, which involved precision strikes on the La Carlota air base and Fort Tiuna, followed by a Delta Force capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They are currently lodged in an American detention facility and facing trial in the Southern District of New York, something that looks like the 1989 capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama.
A Power Vacuum in Caracas?
Inside Venezuela, the capture of the “Commandante” by the “Gringos” may create a volatile power vacuum. For now, as per the country’s constitution, Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president since 2018, is supposed to take over the country’s presidency, but there is little clarity yet. However, Trump, in his media briefing, indicated that the US might manage things in Venezuala alog with Rodríguez, who, in Trump’s words, is “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again”.
What the country’s military will do is another question. With Maduro gone, will the generals support a transition government, or will the country descend into a fragmented civil war between Maduro loyalists and the regular army? Then there is the humanitarian tragedy. With over 7 million people already displaced, a sudden regime collapse could trigger a second, even larger wave of migration, further destabilising neighbours like Colombia and Brazil. Its neighbours are watching closely to ensure there is no fallout on them.
The broader implications
The intervention signals that the U.S. is willing to ignore the so-called liberal international order to enforce its hegemony in the Western hemisphere. Trump told the media that the US will pursue a Monroe Doctrine in the region, or better, a “Don Roe doctrine”. This will weaken Europe’s case against Russia and strengthen Putin’s hand in Ukraine. As for China, which has been carrying out military exercises around Taiwan, the message from Washington is not a negative one.
International reactions
There have been mixed responses from the international community. Russia, China and Iran have condemned the attacks, and the EU put out a carefully worded statement. EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas tweeted that while the “The EU has repeatedly stated that Mr Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition. Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. We call for restraint.”
The German foreign minister tweeted that “The UN Charter is not optional,” and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot noted that the actions “violate the principle of non-resort to force that underpins international law.” However, none of them explicitly named the aggressor or condemned the attack.
As for the Indian stand on the issue, Delhi is yet to respond.